NOV  1   iniq 


BV 

825  .W3 

Wat 

erman,  Lucius, 

,  1851- 

1923. 

The 

primitive  tradition 

of 

th 

e  Eucharistic 

Body  and 

1 

THE  PRIMITIVE  TRADITION 
OF  THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 


THE    PRIMITIVE    TRADITION 

OF    THE     EUCHARISTIC 

BODY  AND    BLOOD 


y    BY 

LUCIUS  Waterman,  d.d. 

RECTOR  OF   S.   THOMAs's  CHURCH,   HANOVER,   NEW   HAMPSHIRE 


LONGMANS,    GREEN    AND    CO 

FOURTH  AVENUE  &  30th  STREET,  NEW  YORK 
39   PATERNOSTER    ROW,   LONDON 

BOMBAY,  CALCUTTA,  AND  MADRAS 
I9I9 


COPYRIGHT,    1919 
BY    LUCIUS    WATERMAN 


All  rights  reserved 


THE-FLIHPTON-PSESS 
NOBWOODIIASS-D'S'A 


THE  BISHOP  PADDOCK  LECTURES 

IN  the  summer  of  the  year  1880,  George  A.  Jarvis,  of 
Brooklyn,  New  York,  moved  by  his  sense  of  the  great 
good  which  might  thereby  accrue  to  the  cause  of  Christ, 
and  to  the  Church  of  which  he  was  an  ever-grateful 
member,  gave  to  the  General  Theological  Seminary  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  certain  securities,  exceeding 
in  value  eleven  thousand  dollars,  for  the  foundation  and 
maintenance  of  a  lectureship  in  said  seminary. 

Out  of  love  to  a  former  pastor  and  enduring  friend,  the 
Right  Reverend  Benjamin  Henry  Paddock,  D.D.,  Bishop 
of  Massachusetts,  he  named  the  foundation  "The  Bishop 
Paddock  Lectureship." 

The  deed  of  trust  declares  that  — 

"The  subjects  of  the  lectures  shall  be  such  as  appertain 
to  the  defence  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  revealed 
in  the  Holy  Bible,  and  illustrated  ua  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  against  the  varying  errors  of  the  day,  whether 
materialistic,  rationalistic,  or  professedly  religious,  and 
also  to  its  defence  and  confirmation  in  respect  of  such 
central  truths  as  the  Trinity,  the  Atonement,  Justifica- 
tion, and  the  Inspiration  of  the  Word  of  God;  and  of  such 
central  facts  as  the  Church's  Divine  Order  and  Sacra- 
ments, her  historical  Reformation,  and  her  rights  and 
powers  as  a  pure  and  national  Church.  And  other  sub- 
jects may  be  chosen  is  unanimously  approved  by  the 
Board  of  Appointment  as  being  both  timely  and  also 
within  the  true  intent  of  this  Lectureship." 

Under  the  appointment  of  the  Board  created  by  the 
Trust,  the  Reverend  Lucius  Waterman,  D.D.,  Rector  of 
St.  Thomas'  Church,  Hanover,  New  Hampshire,  delivered 
the  lectures  for  the  year  1918-1919,  contained  in  this 
volume. 


To 

THE    DEAR   MEMORY 
OF 

JOHN  HUMPHREY-  BARBOUR,   D.D. 
1854- 1900 

A   GIFTED   SCHOLAR  •  A   DEVOUT    PRIEST 

A   MAN    OF    HEAVENLY   MIND 

IN   THE    LIFE    HERE   THE    CLOSE    COMPANION    OF   THESE 

STUDIES  •  ALVV^AYS    CRITICAL  •  ALWAYS    SYMPATHETIC 

AND 

FOR  MORE  THAN  A  QUARTER  OF  A  CENTURY 

MY  FRIEND  OF  FRIENDS 


PREFACE 

THIS  volume  contains  the  Lectures  delivered  at 
the  General  Theological  Seminary  of  the  American 
Episcopal  Church,  in  the  academic  year  1918-1919,  on 
the  Bishop  Paddock  Foundation.  The  view  of  the 
patristic  teaching  which  is  here  presented  has  been  clear 
before  my  mind  for  more  than  forty  years,  and  has  been 
a  matter  of  growing  conviction.  It  will  be  seen  that  I 
have  not  been  in  haste  to  put  it  forth.  Indeed,  I  will 
be  entirely  frank  and  say  that  I  have  been  oppressed  with 
the  thought  that  if  I  was  the  only  person  who  understood 
the  patristic  writings  in  this  way,  —  and  for  long  I  knew 
of  no  other  person  who  entirely  agreed  with  me,  —  my 
understanding  of  the  Fathers  must  obviously  be  a  mis- 
understanding. Also,  I  recall  the  brief  popularity  of 
certain  novel  explanations  of  the  Eucharistic  Mystery, 
which  appeared  about  two  generations  ago,  and  I  observe 
that  to-day  the  names  of  the  authors  of  them  are  no 
longer  heard.  On  the  other  hand,  I  have  encouraged 
myself  in  noting  instances  here  and  there  in  which  careful 
students  have  ascribed  to  particular  Fathers  very  much 
such  a  meaning  as  I  had  seemed  to  find  in  them.  If  the 
same  students  did  not  find  the  same  teaching  running  all 
through  the  patristic  writings,  I  have  thought  that  per- 
haps that  was  because  no  one  had  put  it  into  their  minds 
to  enquire  if  it  was  there.  I  may  mention,  also,  that  on  the 
morning  after  I  had  delivered  my  first  Lecture,  I  received 
from  a  Bishop  whose   theological  opinions  I  had  never 


X  PREFACE 

known  at  all  particularly,  and  who  had  never  known 
much  of  mine,  a  letter  expressing  his  pleasure  at  my  hold- 
ing the  position  of  Paddock  Lecturer  for  this  year,  and  his 
hope  that  I  might  put  forth  something  which  would  be  of 
service  to  the  Church.  He  went  on  to  say  that  for  years 
he  had  been  teaching,  —  and  then  came  a  terse,  clear 
statement  of  the  very  point  which  I  had  been  trying  to 
state,  the  evening  before,  as  the  apostolic  and  primitive 
pre-supposition  concerning  our  Lord's  eucharistic  body, 
and  with  this  impressive  statement  a  plain  indication 
that  my  correspondent's  mind  had  not  only  reached  the 
same  conclusion  as  my  own,  but  travelled  to  it  along  the 
same  path.  The  curious  providence  which  brought  me 
that  letter  on  that  day  was,  of  course,  a  great  encourage- 
ment. My  correspondent's  ministry  and  mine  had  been 
carried  on  in  widely  different  parts  of  this  great  country. 
Perhaps  he  and  I  do  not  stand  alone.  I  wish  that  I 
might  find  that  I  have  been  expressing  the  thought  of 
many  other  students,  who  have  done  much  quiet  thinking, 
but  have  not  felt  any  call  to  speak. 

I  have  read  rather  recently  in  a  magazine  article  a 
hasty  phrase  dropped  from  a  pen  which  I  greatly  admire 
and  value.  It  spoke  of  a  certain  eucharistic  theory  which 
I  do  not  myself  hold  in  respect  as  "a  profane  and  im- 
possible heresy."  I  have  italicized  the  last  word,  to  point 
my  criticism,  and  I  want  to  plead  with  this  esteemed 
writer  and  those  who  think  with  him,  and  urge  upon  them 
that  such  a  phrase  is  quite  too  hasty.  For  the  last  eight 
hundred  years  there  has  been  no  Catholic  explanation 
of  our  Lord's  words,  "This  is  My  body,"  "This  is  My 
blood."  There  is,  I  am  sure,  a  Catholic  doctrine  touch- 
ing the  Holy  Eucharist  and  it  is  this:  "The  consecrated 
bread  is  our  Lord's  very  body,  and  the  consecrated  wine 
is  our  Lord's  very  blood."  As  to  what  is  meant  by  those 
words,  body  and  blood,  there  has  never  been  any  ecumeni- 


PREFACE  xi 

cal  decision.  I  think  that  there  was  once  an  ecumenical 
agreement.  I  have  tried  in  these  Lectures  to  show  what 
it  was.  I  may  mention  that  I  suppose  that  agreement 
to  have  remained,  with  Uttle  disturbance,  but  with 
a  fading  force  of  conscious  memory  on  the  part  of  the 
Church,  for  more  than  seven  hundred  years.  S.  John  of 
Damascus  seems  to  me  to  present  it  clearly  and  strongly 
in  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century.  But  it  has  been 
impossible  for  me  to  examine  closely  and  fully  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Fathers  beyond  the  first  four  hundred  years 
of  the  Church's  life.  My  references  to  that  number  of 
centuries  are  not  to  be  taken  as  meaning  that  I  have 
any  idea  that  the  Church's  doctrine  was  different  in  three 
or  four  centuries  next  following. 

In  my  references  Pusey  stands  always  for  Dr.  Pusey's 
volume.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  as  contained  in 
the  Fathers,  being  Notes  on  a  Sermon,  etc.  I  have  assumed 
that  if  an  American  student  had  any  Catena  of  eucharistic 
references  from  the  Fathers  on  his  shelves,  it  would 
probably  be  that  one.  My  references  have  been  made 
to  the  edition  in  which  the  Notes  were  published,  apart 
from  the  Sermon,  in  1855.  I  have  myself  been  much 
indebted  to  a  Catena  published  by  Rev.  Charles  Hebert, 
D.D.,  London,  1879,  in  which  all  quotations  are  given 
in  the  original  tongues  in  foot-notes,  along  with  the 
English  version.  The  title  of  the  book  is  The  Lord's 
Supper:  History  of  Uninspired  Teaching,  and  the  pub- 
lishers were  Seeley,  Jackson  and  Halliday.  It  gives 
only  representative  passages  for  the  different  centuries, 
but  covers  all  the  centuries  to  the  present  day.  I  men- 
tion the  book  here,  but  have  given  no  references  to  it. 
Stone  in  my  references  stands  always  for  Dr.  Darwell 
Stone's  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
Vol.  I.  For  those  students —  May  their  tribe  increase! — 
who  wish  to  look  up  the  originals  of  my  patristic  refer- 


xii  PREFACE 

ences,  I  have  thought  it  best  to  send  them  to  Migne's 
Patrologia  Latina  and  Patrologia  Gracca,  referred  to  as 
P.  L.  and  P.  G.  For  writers  lying  outside  the  range  of 
the  Patrologiae  I  have  given  no  reference  to  originals, 
not  having  examined  the  originals  myself. 

I  owe  thanks  to  my  friends,  Prof.  Richard  W.  Husband 
and  Prof.  George  D.  Lord,  of  the  Dartmouth  College 
Faculty,  for  advice  in  regard  to  some  matters  of  Latin  and 
Greek  scholarship.  Neither  of  them  is  to  be  held  respon- 
sible for  any  statement  made  in  this  book,  nor  for  any 
rendering  given.  I  owe  very  particular  thanks  also  to  the 
Rev.  Francis  J.  Hall,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Dogmatic  Theology 
in  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  for  kindly  reading 
all  my  Lectures,  which  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  hear, 
and  offering  valuable  criticisms  on  points  of  minor  detail, 
while  reserving  his  judgment  on  the  main  lines  of  thought. 
He  also  is  not  to  be  held  responsible  for  anything  con- 
tained in  this  book. 

Lectures  containing  much  quotation  and  discussion 
of  authorities  are  apt  to  be  very  unsatisfactory  to  listen 
to,  and  very  tiresome.  As  I  remember  the  generous 
patience  and  unfailing  kindness  of  my  hearers,  the  Faculty, 
and  a  good  many  of  the  students  of  the  Seminary  in 
Chelsea  Square,  I  feel  that  I  must  give  myself  the  pleasure 
of  a  word  of  grateful  thanks  to  them.  Some  of  them 
must  have  thought  my  views  seriously  mistaken,  and  my 
work  wasted;  but  they  were  patiently  attentive  and 
constantly  kind.  I  trust  that  readers  may  not  think 
it  amiss  that  I  have  kept  the  Lecture  form,  and  am  still 
addressing  myself  to  them  as  if  they  were  hearers  of  the 
spoken  word.  It  is  asking  more  of  them,  but  I  do  ask 
them,  to  trust  to  a  writer  whom  they  do  not  know,  that 
it  is  a  mark  of  modesty  rather  than  of  self-assurance 
that  he  should  use  the  pronoun  "I"  in  a  way  which  will 
seem  to  some  excessive.     His  purpose  of  heart  is  by  no 


PREFACE  xiii 

means  to  say,  "I  think  it,  and  I  know  that  I  am  right," 
but  rather,  "I  think  it,  and  my  hearers  must  judge, 
every  one  for  himself.  I  can  give  you  only  that  vision 
which  God  has  given  me  to  see.  I  know  that  God  some- 
times gives  His  servants  visions  that  are  misleading, 
for  their  discipline  and  for  the  world's  discipline.  To 
make  mistakes,  and  work  out  the  natural  results  of  those 
mistakes,  is  part  of  every  man's  education.  Here  is  my 
vision.  Search  it  in  the  fear  of  God,  to  see  whether  it 
be  false  or  true." 

I  may  add  that  to  any  critics  who  may  show  me  mis- 
takes that  I  have  made,  or  misunderstandings  into 
which  I  have  fallen,  so  as  to  make  them  clear  to  me, 
I  shall  be  profoundly  grateful.  And  so,  whether  for 
edification  of  others  or  for  correction  of  myself,  I  commend 
my  book  to  the  gracious  providence  of  God. 

Hanover,  New  Hampshire, 

Commemoration  of  S.  Anselm,  1919 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  EucHARisTic  Pre-Suppositions,  Ancient 
AND  Modern,  and  Critical  Obser- 
vations ON  Some  Modern  Eucharistic 
Theories       3 

II.  The  Ephesene  -  Roman   Tradition:   Rome; 

Carthage;  Milan 27 

III.  The    Use    of    Figurative    Language    in 

Holy  Scripture,  and  the  Testimony  of 
THE  Alexandrian  School 58 

IV.  Bodies  Identified,  not  Necessarily  Bodies 

Identical,    and    Examination    of    the 
Testimonies  of  the  Asiatic  Schools  .    .       86 

V.  The  Great  Writers  between  the  Second 
AND  Third  General  Councils,  Constan- 
tinople, A.D.  381,  AND  Ephesus,  A.D. 
431:  Latin  Fathers 118 

VI.  The  Great  Writers  between  the  Second 
AND  Third  General  Councils:  Greek 
Fathers 146 

VII.  Later  Theologians  who  Press  the 
Parallel  of  the  Incarnation  and  the 
Eucharist 184 

Appendices     215 

Notes 233 

XV 


The  Primitive    Tradition  of  the 
Eucharistic  Body  and  Blood 


'The  Primitive    Tradition  of  the 
Eucharistic  Body  and  Blood 


LECTURE  I 

EUCHARISTIC  PRE-SUPPOSITIONS,  ANCIENT  AND 
MODERN,  AND  CRITICAL  OBSERVATIONS  ON 
SOME  MODERN  EUCHARISTIC  THEORIES 


The  Excuse  for  the  Writing  of  this  Book 

ONE  who  sets  himself  to  tell  anew  the  story  of  the 
Church's  Eucharistic  Tradition  may  well  begin 
with  an  apology.  The  thought  of  devout  students  in 
our  time  is  so  hopelessly  confused;  who  can  hope  to 
clear  it?  Men  of  decided  views  are  so  utterly  divided  in 
opinions;  who  can  dream  of  bringing  them  together? 
The  views  of  all  the  differing  schools  of  thought  have  been 
so  well  represented  by  able  advocates;  who  can  imagine 
himself  able  to  do  better  in  presenting  any  of  these 
rival  theories?  Especially  after  the  two  noble  volumes 
of  Dr.  Darwell  Stone's  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  careful,  candid,  scholarly,  and  devout, 
it  seems  to  the  present  writer,  at  any  rate,  that  he  is 
bound  to  begin  his  writing  with  presenting  some  excuse 
for  entering  the  field  at  all.  His  one  excuse  —  an  excuse 
which  will  have  no  effect  with  many  persons  but  to  make 

3 


4  THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

his  venture  more  deeply  inexcusable  —  is  simply  this. 
He  thinks  himself  to  have  found  in  the  course  of  Christian 
History  a  shift  in  the  Church's  presuppositions  in  regard 
to  the  great  mystery  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Certainly, 
for  eight  hundred  years  the  Church  was  at  peace  in 
regard  to  this  matter.  Certainly,  in  a  period  of  barbarian 
invasion  and  oppression,  when  the  Church's  scholarship 
was  decadent,  the  Church's  memory  dimmed,  the  Church's 
momentum  almost  at  a  standstill,  the  Church  just  turning 
with  tears  and  fears  from  the  burial  of  an  old  civilization 
to  the  baptism  of  a  new  evolution,  out  of  which  the 
Church  was  faintly  hoping  that  some  civilization  might 
yet  arise,  —  at  such  a  time  men  began  to  think  about  the 
Holy  Eucharist  in  new  ways,  and  in  regard  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Eucharist  there  has  been  confusion  and  strife  among 
Christians  ever  since.  The  present  writer  finds  at  that 
great  turning-point  in  the  Church's  history  a  momentous 
change  in  the  Church's  mental  attitude,  an  unconscious 
shift  in  the  Church's  tradition.  The  object  of  this  book 
is  to  bring  to  view  again,  if  it  be  possible,  the  eucharistic 
pre-suppositions  of  the  Church  of  the  Apostolic  Age. 

II 

Some  Examples  of  Pre-supposition 

Pre-suppositions  are  very  important  forces  in  the 
development  of  thought.  Let  us  take  the  word  "tradi- 
tion," for  example.  There  are  two  very  different  kinds 
of  tradition,  both  of  which  have  done  much  to  make  his- 
tory, —  the  tradition  that  remembers,  and  the  tradition 
that  guesses  and  invents.  When  men  discuss  the  value 
of  tradition,  and  cannot  at  all  agree,  it  is  sure  to  be, 
partly,  at  least,  because  each  of  the  disputants  has  started 


EUCHARISTIC  PRE-SUPPOSITIONS  5 

with  a  pre-supposition,  and  they  have  not  taken  the 
trouble  to  understand  one  another  enough  to  make  sure 
of  discussing  the  same  thing.  The  one  who  praises 
tradition  is  thinking  of  tradition  as  a  great  memory. 
The  Christian  Church  of  the  Apostles'  days  certainly 
understood  rightly  the  broad  lines,  at  any  rate,  of  S. 
Paul's  teaching  in  the  Epistles,  and  (let  us  say)  of  the 
teaching  of  the  Gospel  according  to  S.  John.  The  Church 
of  the  Apostolic  Age  did  teach  that  general  meaning 
rightly  to  the  next  generation.  That  is  an  example  of 
the  tradition  that  remembers.  When  we  find  the  Church 
of  the  first  three  or  four  centuries,  beginning  with  witnesses 
who  were  born  before  the  death  of  S.  Paul,  and  were 
contemporaries  of  S.  John,  always  maintaining  a  certain 
broad  line  of  religious  thought  as  that  of  S.  Paul,  we  may 
be  sure  that  that  was  a  memory  of  what  S.  Paul  really 
did  mean  to  teach.  Holy  Scripture,  we  know  all  too 
well,  can  be  made  to  mean  anything  in  the  hands  of 
clever  controversialists  of  to-day.  What  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings  really  did  mean  is  found  securely  in  the 
general  agreement  of  the  Church's  memory,  as  to  the 
main  lines  of  that  meaning,  in  the  first  centuries  after 
the  New  Testament  writers  died.  The  tradition  that 
remembers  is  a  great  and  worthy  thing.  But  the  party 
of  the  other  part,  the  man  who  inveighs  against  tradition, 
is  thinking  of  something  very  different.  He  also  has  a 
pre-supposition.  To  him  "tradition"  means  a  mere 
fashion  of  thought,  uncritical,  unfounded.  To  him 
tradition  is  synonymous  with  guess-work.  Moreover,  he 
can  point  to  examples  of  tradition,  which  have  posed  as 
venerable  monuments  of  the  Church's  memory,  and 
have  been  found  to  be  specimens  of  pure  invention  after 
all.  The  Forged  Decretals  of  the  eighth  century  are  a 
fine  example.    For  three  hundred  years  they  have  been 


6  THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

known  to  be  impudent  forgeries,  but  they  are  still  quoted 
as  authorities  in  the  Canon  Law  of  the  Roman  Com- 
munion. 

Here,  then,  are  two  pre-supposltions,  which  to  confuse 
must  reduce  argument  upon  their  subject  to  a  hopeless 
tangle.  The  advocate  of  tradition  (the  High  Anglican, 
at  any  rate)  assumes  all  through  that  the  Church's 
scholars  will  distinguish  carefully  between  a  real  memory 
from  the  beginning  and  a  guess  that  rose  to  the  surface 
sometime  in  the  course  of  the  ages,  and  became  fashion- 
able. He  assumes,  he  presupposes,  that  scholars  of  his 
party  will  advance  nothing  under  the  name  of  tradition 
that  cannot  be  proved  to  belong  to  the  Church's  con- 
tinuous memory  of  Apostolic  teaching  and  practice.  The 
despiser  of  tradition,  on  the  other  hand,  has  his  correspond- 
ing pre-supposition.  He  assumes  with  confidence  that 
the  man  who  values  tradition  must  be  a  man  to  whom 
all  tradition  is  authoritative,  and  who  by  his  belief  in 
the  value  of  tradition  is  cut  off  from  critical  enquiry  as 
to  whether  any  given  tradition  has  a  value  of  its  own, 
or  not.  Great  is  the  power  of  unuttered  pre-supposition 
in  the  working  of  the  human  mind. 

Ill 

Two  Natural  Pre-suppositions  TOUcnrNG  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  —  the  Modern  and  the  Ancient 

I  have  suggested  the  occurrence  of  an  unconscious 
change  in  the  pre-suppositions  of  Christian  minds  con- 
cerning the  Holy  Eucharist,  at  a  time  of  very  deep  pros- 
tration and  enfeeblement.  Let  us  consider  a  little  what 
would  be  the  natural  pre-suppositions  of  the  Christian 
mind,  a  thousand  years  ago,  and  nearly  nineteen  hundred 
years  ago,  respectively. 


EUCHARISTIC  PRE-SUPPOSITIONS  7 

A.  The  Natural  Presupposition  of  the  Last  Thousand 
Years. 

A  thousand  years  ago,  as  now,  a  Christian  thinker, 
approaching  with  reverent  speculation  our  Lord's  great 
words,  "This  is  My  body,"  would  naturally  begin  with 
the  idea  that  here  was  a  great,  a  magnificent  reality, 
mysterious,  supernatural,  transcending  utterly  all  that 
human  sense  could  perceive.  Here  are  two  facts,  an 
earthly  and  a  heavenly.  So  the  Church  has  been  teach- 
ing through  all  the  ages.  But  now  to  the  believer's  heart 
the  heavenly  fact  so  utterly  transcends  the  earthly  fact 
that  the  earthly  fact,  the  hallowed  bread,  sinks  out  of 
sight.  To  the  believer's  mind,  then,  the  word  "This"  in 
our  Lord's  great  saying  will  stand  for  the  heavenly  fact, 
and  not  for  the  earthly  fact. 

Secondly,  this  modern  Christian  mind,  whether  of 
the  ninth  century  or  of  the  nineteenth,  is  likely  to  be  a 
mind  to  which  the  phrase  "My  body,"  coming  from  our 
Lord's  lips,  suggests  but  one  possible  subject  of  thought, 
—  our  Lord's  body  which  rose  from  the  grave,  and  as- 
cended into  heaven,  and  now  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of 
God.  That  body  is  a  thing  glorified,  mysterious,  en- 
dowed with  we  know  not  what  new,  exalted  capacities. 
That  glorious  body,  then,  we  must  think,  is  presented  to 
our  faith  as  the  heavenly  fact  of  the  Eucharistic  Feast. 
And  we  fall  down,  and  adore.  Or,  peradventure,  the 
revelation  which  these  words  suggest  seems  to  us,  on  the 
other  hand,  to  be  impossible,  and  we  feel  bound  to  ex- 
plain it  in  some  way  which  to  our  brethren  will  seem  to 
be  an  explaining  away. 

B.  The  Natural  Presupposition  of  the  First  Disciples. 
But  in  the  year  of  our  Lord's  death  it  was  different. 

Let  us  turn  our  thoughts  back  to  the  scene  of  the  Institu- 
tion of  the  Blessed  Sacrament.    The  Apostles  are  reclining 


8  THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

at  the  table  where  they  have  been  eating  the  Jewish 
Passover,  itself  a  feast  upon  a  sacrifice,  where  they  have 
been  taught  that  God's  people  eat  the  food  of  God.  The 
supper  is  nearly  ended,  when  their  Master  stands  before 
them,  and  ofiFers  them  a  heavenly  feeding  that  is  new. 
First,  He  utters  a  long  prayer  of  Thanksgiving  (of  Eucha- 
rist, to  use  the  Greek  name,  which  since  has  become 
familiar  throughout  the  Christian  world),  and  near  the 
close  of  that  prayer  He  blesses  certain  portions  of  bread 
and  wine  with  words  of  consecration  which  have  not 
been  made  known  to  us.^  Then  he  gives  of  this  hallowed 
bread  and  wine  to  the  Apostles  with  these  amazing  words, 
—  "This  is  My  body,"  "This  is  My  blood."  I  do  not 
attempt  to  quote  the  phrases  fully.  I  am  concerned  now 
to  try  to  recover  first  impressions  of  mysterious  words, 
and  in  first  impressions  only  the  chief  outlines  stand  out 
clear.  "This  is  My  body!"  What  thoughts  could  that 
phrase  suggest  at  that  moment  to  our  Lord's  chosen 
followers?  Plainly,  their  minds  must  have  gone  back 
with  a  rush  of  memory  to  the  strange  preaching  of  just  a 
year  before  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum,  when  our 
Lord  had  promised  in  startling   (and  to  many  of  His 

*  It  is  aside  from  my  present  subject,  but  I  cannot  pass  by  this  point 
without  remarking  that  the  so-called  "Words  of  Institution"  are  in 
fact  "Words  of  Distribution,"  and  that  our  Lord's  real  "Words  of 
Institution"  have  not  been  handed  down  to  us,  not  having  been  preserved 
in  the  memory  of  His  Church.  From  the  example  of  most  of  the  ancient 
Liturgies  we  may  safely  assume  that  our  Lord's  form  of  consecration 
consisted  of  a  prayer  to  the  Divine  Father  to  send  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
make  this  bread  and  ^ine  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Son  of  His  love.  It 
would  be  hard  to  say  what  mischief  this  unhappy  phrase,  "the  Words 
of  Institution,"  and  the  unhappy  (and  almost  impossible)  assumption 
that  the  words  of  distribution  are  the  words  with  which  our  Lord  con- 
secrated His  first  Eucharist  have  wrought  in  the  fields  of  Liturgies  and 
Dogmatic  Theology. 


EUCHARISTIC  PRE-SUPPOSITIONS  9 

followers,  repellent)  language  that  He  would  give  His 
people  His  flesh  to  eat.  He  had  vowed  that  they  should 
eat  His  flesh  and  drink  His  blood.  He  had  refused  to 
explain.  He  had  made  it  altogether  clear  that  He  had 
some  great  thing  to  reveal  to  them,  and  that  it  was  a 
thing  too  mysterious  to  be  capable  of  being  explained. 
Now  He  was  fulfilling  that  promise  at  last.  Here  was  no 
more  of  explanation  than  before,  but  here  at  any  rate 
was  the  promised  fact,  "This,"  He  said,  "is  My  body." 
"This,"  to  those  Apostles  could  have  no  other  meaning 
than  "This  bread  which  I  hold  in  My  hands."  To 
them,  at  that  moment,  the  word  "This"  must  refer  to 
something  visible  and  tangible,  something  that  was,  as 
we  say,  "in  evidence,"  not  (as  moderns  are  apt  to  take  it) 
to  a  supernal,  invisible  fact,  with  which  the  minds  of 
these  men  had  not  yet  been  brought  into  acquaintance. 
That  is  the  fikst  immediate  pre-supposition  of  the 
Apostles'  minds.  "This  is  My  body"  must  mean  "This 
bread  is  My  body." 

The  second  pre-supposition  of  these  men,  just  as  im- 
mediate and  inevitable,  must  have  been  this:  "When 
our  Lord  says,  'This  is  My  body,'  He  does  not  mean 
that  the  bread  which  He  holds  in  His  hands  is  the  very 
body  in  which  He  stands  before  us,  holding  it.  Evi- 
dently, He  means  that  this  bread  is  somehow  His  body, 
as  well  as  the  body  of  flesh  in  which  He  stands  before  us. 
This  bread  is  His  body  as  much  as  His  natural  ^  body  is. 

^  In  speaking  of  the  body  of  our  Lord's  earthly  life  as  "His  natural 
body,"  I  may  remind  some  persons  of  that  phrase  of  S.  Paul,  so  unhappily 
rendered,  even  in  our  Revised  Versions,  "There  is  a  natural  body,  and 
there  is  a  spiritual  body."  S.  Paul's  two  Greek  phrases  indicate,  as 
I  suppose,  (1)  a  body  governed  by  the  soul  (seat  of  feelings  and  desires) 
and  (2)  a  body  governed  by  the  spirit  (seat  of  principles  and  conscience), 
respectively.  A  soul-body  (a-una  xf/vxiKou)  is  contrasted  with  a  spirit- 
body  {ffufxa  TTvevnaTiKbv).    It  may  be  observed  that  there  is  no  ground 


10         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

This  new  body  is  a  continuation,  an  enlargement,  of  our 
Lord's  body  which  we  have  always  known.  When  we 
eat  this  bread  of  His,  we  are  eating  what  He  has  made 
to  be  His  flesh,  we  are  made  one  with  Him,  our  bodies 
are  made  one  with  His  body.  But  this  is  a  new  embodi- 
ment, such  as  our  Master  has  not  had  before," 

The  Apostles  knew  how  differently  our  Lord  used 
words  from  any  other  teacher.  They  remembered  per- 
haps, in  a  sudden  flash,  how  He  had  bidden  them  beware 
of  the  leaven  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  they  had 
thought,  blunderingly  enough,  that  He  was  talking  of 
the  leaven  with  which  people  make  bread.  They  knew 
that  they  were  always  in  danger  of  misunderstanding 
Him.  They  may  well  have  feared  that  they  were  mis- 
understanding Him  now.  Or  perhaps  there  was  not 
time  just  then  for  any  thought  that  was  clear  enough  to 
be  put  into  words.  How  much  or  little  those  Apostles 
thought  is,  for  us,  purely  conjectural.  But  I  am  sure  that 
so  far  as  they  did  think,  their  immediate,  natural  pre- 
supposition from  those  words,  "This  is  My  body,"  must 
have  been,  "This  also,  this  as  well  as  the  body  in  which  we 
have  known  Him  heretofore,  is  the  body  of  our  Master, 
Jesus,  the  Christ." 

for  supposing  that  a  spirit-body  is  one  whit  less  material  than  a  soul- 
body.  The  contrast  of  "natural"  and  "spiritual"  in  our  English  Ver- 
sions has  unfortunately,  though  very  "naturally,"  suggested  a  contrast  of 
"material"  and  "spiritual"  which  cannot  have  been  in  S.  Paul's  mind. 
S.  Paul  would  have  been  deeply  shocked  and  irritated,  if  he  could  have 
foreseen  our  English  misrepresentation  of  what  he  said.  I  suspect  that 
he  would  even  have  cried  in  his  distress,  'ii  Avot/ts,  "Thou  fool!" 
For  "body"  is  a  word  which  in  itself  implies  something  material. 

Of  course,  our  Lord's  body  was  never  a  "soul-body."  It  was  always 
"spiritual."  I  am  using  the  phrase  "natural  body"  to  denote  the  body 
which  our  Lord  had  by  nature,  what  I  suppose,  S.  Paul  would  have 
called  aufia  4>v(jiKbv. 


EUCHARISTIC  PRE-SUPPOSITIONS  11 

IV 

Three  Things,  not  One,  called  in  Scripture  the 
Body  of  our  Lord 

I  once  advanced  such  an  idea  of  the  meaning  of  our 
Lord's  words  to  a  Doctor  of  Sacred  Theology,  and  he 
answered  pettishly,  "There  is  no  such  thing  as  another 
body.  Our  Lord  has  but  one  body."  But  that  was  an 
uncareful  assertion,  and  quite  contrary  to  fact.  Three 
things  are  called  in  Holy  Scripture  by  this  one  name,  of 
the  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  There  is  (1)  His 
natural  body,  in  which  He  was  born,  and  died,  in  which 
He  rose  from   death,  and  went  into   heaven.     There  is 

(2)  His  sacramental  body,  in  the  Eucharist.     There  is 

(3)  His  mystical  body,  the  Church.  Surely,  our  Lord 
might  say  of  His  Church  on  earth,  "This  is  My  body," 
and  if  He  did  so  speak,  all  the  Church  would  receive  the 
saying  without  question,  as  meaning  obviously,  "This 
also  is  My  body."  "This,  as  well  as  my  natural  body  of 
flesh  and  bones,  is  worthy  to  bear  the  great  name  of  '  My 
body.'" 

And  here  perhaps  one  may  be  permitted  to  enter  into 
a  reverent  enquiry  as  to  what  is  the  fitness  of  that  great 
title,  by  which  the  Church  of  Christ  is  called  "the  body  of 
Christ."  What,  we  must  ask  ourselves,  is  the  essential 
fact  of  body?  What  makes  a  certain  mass  of  material 
to  be  a  man's  body?  I  venture  to  suggest  that  it  is  the 
fact  that  that  material  organism  is  the  vehicle  of  the 
man's  life,  and  an  instrument  through  which  he  may 
bring  his  life  to  bear  upon  the  world.  The  common  man 
has  only  one  such  embodiment.  The  Lord  from  heaven 
has  more  than  one.  To  every  human  being  who  receives 
His  Sacrament  of  Baptism  our  Lord  imparts  a  share  of 


12         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

His  own  human  life.  It  might  be  said,  therefore,  that 
the  body  of  every  Christian  becomes  an  embodiment  of 
the  Christ,  being  what  I  have  just  now  said,  —  "a  vehicle 
of  our  Lord's  life,  and  an  instrument  by  which  our  Lord 
may  bring  His  life  to  bear  upon  the  world."  But  those 
who  were  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  form  the  phrase- 
ology of  the  infant  Church  did  not  teach  us  to  call  the 
body  of  each  single  Christian  the  body  of  Christ.  If  one 
may  reverently  conjecture,  it  would  seem  that  our  Lord 
is  not  willing  to  call  by  so  great  a  name  a  body  which  is 
in  so  small  a  measure  His  own  body,  as  that  of  an  in- 
dividual Christian,  a  body  so  much  more  largely  animated 
by  the  life  with  which  it  was  born  than  by  His  life,  a  body 
which  is  at  times  so  largely  the  instrument  of  sinful  desire, 
and  evil  will.  But  the  society  made  up  of  all  these 
persons  whose  bodies  have  received  the  indwelling  life  of 
Jesus  is  so  greatly  a  vehicle  of  our  Lord's  life,  and  is, 
with  all  the  sins  and  failures  of  its  members,  so  greatly, 
so  growingly,  and  (in  its  necessary  evolution)  so  surely 
an  instrument  by  which  He  brings  His  life  to  bear  upon 
the  world,  that  our  Lord  is  willing  to  call  that  society 
by  the  name  of  His  body.  He  rejoices  to  describe  Him- 
self as  the  Head  of  that  body.  It  is,  indeed,  the  fact 
that  He  is  Himself  the  Chief  Member  of  the  society  which 
we  call  the  Church,  which  is  the  very  greatest  reason 
why  He  is  willing  to  call  that  society  by  this  magnificent 
name  of  His  body  on  earth.  Then,  further,  as  He  calls 
the  Church  on  earth  His  body,  He  is  willing  to  describe 
those  who  have  been  baptized  into  Him  as  members  of 
that  body.  Nay  more,  He  is  willing  that  they  should 
be  known  as  members  of  His  body  in  which  He  was  born. 
Certainly,  the  passage  which  we  are  in  the  habit  of 
reading  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephcsians  (v.  30),  "We 
are  members  of  His  body,  of  His  flesh  and  of  His  bones," 


EUCHARISTIC  PRE-SUPPOSITIONS  13 

was  not  so  written  by  S.  Paul.  That  is  to  say,  the 
qualifying  phrase,  "of  His  flesh  and  of  His  bones,"  is  an 
early  gloss,  and  not  from  the  Apostle.  But  the  gloss 
only  gives  expression,  one  may  feel  sure,  to  what  was 
really  in  S.  Paul's  mind.  When  one  reads  the  Apostle's 
words  to  the  Corinthians  (1  Cor.  xii.  12),  "As  the  body 
is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  ...  so  also  is  Christ," 
—  not  "so  also  is  the  Church,"  but  "so  also  is  Christ,"  — 
and  again  (1  Cor.  vi.  15),  "Know  ye  not  that  your  bodies 
are  members  of  Christ.'^  Shall  I  then  take  away  the 
members  of  Christ,  and  make  them  members  of  a  harlot? 
God  forbid,"  we  see  that  S.  Paul  was  guided  to  think  of 
cm*  Lord  as  living  in  an  embodiment  in  His  Church  on 
earth,  which  was,  so  to  speak,  an  extension  of  the  Incarna- 
tion, the  Church  being  an  addition  to  that  body  which 
was  carried  up  into  heaven,  being  in  one  sense  another 
body,  and  yet  in  a  sense  the  same  body  manifested  in  an 
enlargement  of  its  function.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said 
that  in  S.  Paul's  theology  the  Church  as  the  body  of  our 
Lord  is  identified,  yet  not  identical,  with  the  body  upon 
the  heavenly  Throne. 

If  Holy  Scrip tm-e  thus  calls  something  "the  body  of 
Christ,"  which  yet  is  not  the  same  as  the  body  of  our 
Lord's  earthly  life,  but  another  body,  and  yet  again  is  an 
extension  of  that  former  body,  in  such  wise  as  that  all 
who  have  part  in  the  body,  the  Church,  have  part  also 
in  the  body  that  went  into  heaven,  —  if  this  be  so,  surely 
it  is  not  a  suggestion  to  be  cast  aside  with  hasty  scorn 
that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whose  voice  speaks  to  us  in 
every  Scripture  inspired  of  God,  might  use  such  a  phrase 
as  "This  is  My  body,"  to  indicate  some  such  fact  of 
supernatural  embodiment  in  His  Blessed  Sacrament  of 
the  Eucharist.  How  the  Church  of  the  first  five  cen- 
turies did  understand  our  Lord's  words  shall  be  con- 


14         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

sidered  in  later  Lectures.  At  present,  I  am  asking  only 
that  you  will  hold  your  minds  open  to  consider  the  possi- 
bility that  our  Lord  might  speak  of  a  sacramental  element 
as  His  body,  even  as  He  teaches  us  to  call  the  Church 
of  the  baptized  Ilis  body,  without  meaning  necessarily 
that  this,  His  body,  is  the  body  of  His  natural  flesh. 


Difficulties  attach  to  all  the  Theories  founded 
ON  the  Modern  Pre-supposition 

I  have  indicated  that  the  Apostles  must  have  formed 
an  instant  pre-supposition,  when  they  heard  our  Lord's 
words  in  the  upper  room,  that  "This  is  My  body"  must 
mean  "This  also  is  My  body,"  "This  bread  is  as  worthy 
to  bear  the  name  of  My  body,  as  is  My  natural  frame  in 
which  I  stand  before  you."  I  freely  acknowledge  that 
if  our  Lord  wished  to  save  them  from  that  pre-supposition 
by  words  of  warning,  either  then  or  afterw'ards.  He  might 
have  done  so,  and  that  the  fact  that  no  such  words  have 
been  written  for  our  learning  is  not  an  absolute  bar  to  a 
theory  that  such  words  were  said.  If  later  we  shall  find 
reason  for  holding  that  the  Apostles  impressed  upon  the 
Church's  mind  what  I  have  called  "the  modern  pre- 
supposition," and  that  that  is  really  the  pre-supposition 
of  all  the  Christian  ages,  then  the  natural  first  thought  of 
the  Apostles  will  have  to  be  dismissed,  to  go  along  with 
so  many  of  their  natural  first  thoughts,  which  were,  I 
further  acknowledge,  often  altogether  wrong.  But  I 
press  the  point  that  they  must  have  had  this  pre-supposi- 
tion at  first,  and  I  claim  to  have  shown  from  the  use  of 
the  phrase  "Body  of  Christ"  by  inspired  men  in  their 
teaching  about  the  Church  that  such  a  use  of  the  word 
"body"  is  not  impossible  and  incredible  in  itself. 


EUCHARISTIC  PRE-SUPPOSITIONS  15 

I  must  ask  your  attention  now  to  certain  difficulties 
which  seem  to  me  to  attach  to  the  various  theories  con- 
cerning the  Holy  Eucharist  which  have  grown  up  out  of 
what  I  have  ventured  to  call  "the  modern  pre-supposi- 
tion."  This  pre-supposition  includes,  I  here  repeat, 
these  two  points,  —  that  "This"  points  to  the  great 
heavenly  Reality,  not  to  the  bread,  and  that  "My  body," 
spoken  by  our  Lord,  must  mean  "My  body  of  My  natural 
life,"  and  cannot  mean  anything  else. 

1.  Of  modern  theories  I  take  up  first  that  which  is 
often  called  the  Zwinglian,  from  the  name  of  the  Swiss 
reformer,  Ulrich  Zwingli.  It  starts  out  with  the  pre- 
supposition which  I  have  indicated,  and  says,  "Taken 
literally,  this  is  impossible.  The  glorified  body  of  our 
Lord  cannot  be  in  heaven  and  here  at  the  same  time,  and 
on  a  thousand  altars  at  once.  Evidently,  then,  this 
utterance  is  simply  figurative.  'This  is  My  body'  means 
'This  is  a  figure  of  My  body.'  Sacraments  are  pictures. 
They  are  symbols,  —  parables,  if  you  will,  —  of  great 
heavenly  facts.  But  in  the  Sacrament  itself  is  no  great 
heavenly  fact  at  all."  I  shall  not  spend  much  time  in 
criticism  of  this  theory.  It  has  no  standing  in  the  Church 
to  which  I  belong.  It  is,  confessedly,  the  farthest  re- 
moved of  all  possible  eucharistic  theories  from  the  mind 
of  the  primitive  Church.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  of  it  that 
it  evacuates  the  Holy  Eucharist  of  everything  in  the  way 
of  mystery.  And  if  any  one  thing  is  more  conspicuously 
manifest  than  another  in  regard  to  this  Sacrament,  it  is 
this,  that  the  subject  is  a  mysterious  subject.  When 
our  Lord  predicted,  a  year  before  His  death,  that  He 
would  give  His  followers  His  flesh  to  eat,  and  His  blood  to 
drink.  He  shocked  men  so  terribly  that  even  His  close 
followers  fell  away  from  Him  in  such  numbers  as  to 
shock  Him  terribly  in  turn.     Surely,  it  is  manifest  that 


16         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

they  regarded  Him  as  having  said  something  very  mys- 
terious. Surely,  also,  if  what  He  really  meant  was 
something  quite  simple  and  un-mysterious,  a  mere  com- 
monplace of  Oriental  figurative  speech,  He  would  have 
explained  His  meaning  at  once.  If  the  Zwinglian  view 
of  the  Christian  sacraments  were  indeed  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  sacraments,  a  few  words  from  our  Lord  would 
have  prevented  all  that  dreary  loss  of  personal  following 
then,  and  would  have  fastened  that  same  simplicity  of 
explanation  upon  the  minds  of  His  Apostles,  and  upon 
the  mind  of  His  Church  for  all  time.  But  no!  S.  John 
evidently  presents  the  subject  of  this  feeding  as  a  highly 
mysterious  subject.  So  does  S.  Paul  present  both  of 
the  two  chief  Sacraments  as  effective  powers,  and  mysteri- 
ous powers.  "As  many  of  you  as  were  baptized  into 
Christ,  did  put  on  Christ"  (Gal.  iii.  27).  "The  bread 
which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of 
Christ?"  (1  Cor.  x.  16)  A  theory  which  describes  the 
greater  Sacraments  as  mere  ineffective  symbols  of  great 
truths  is  not  consistent  with  the  religion  actually  founded 
by  our  Lord.'^ 

2.  Turning  to  the  opposite  extreme,  we  have  the 
theory  which  the  Roman  Communion  has  formulated, 

*  Careful  readers  of  our  Lord's  discourse  recorded  in  S.  John  vi.  26-65, 
will  observe  that  our  Lord  does  not  first  bid  men  eat  His  flesh,  and 
drink  His  blood,  and  then  explain  by  saying,  "I  am  the  bread  of  life." 
On  the  contrary.  He  first  directs  men's  attention  to  the  need  of  a  heavenly 
feeding,  then  declares  Himself  to  be  the  bread  of  life,  the  bread  which 
Cometh  down  from  heaven,  and  then  proceeds  to  define  the  particular 
kind  of  approach  by  which  men  are  to  come  into  touch  with  Him  as  the 
source  of  supernatural  feeding.  They  are  to  come  into  touch  with  Him 
by  way  of  His  flesh.  "The  brciid  which  I  will  give  is  My  flesh."  He 
does  not  explain  words  about  flesh  and  blood  in  terms  of  spirit.  He 
explains  words  of  spirit  in  terms  of  flesh  and  blood.  He  insists,  it  may 
be  said,  on  the  sacramental  method,  —  the  approach  to  the  spiritual 
through  the  material. 


EUCHARISTIC  PRE-SUPPOSITIONS  17 

and  has  laid  on  all  its  followers  as  a  matter  of  necessary 
faith. 

The  Zwinglian  theory  says  that  there  is  in  our  conse- 
crated elements  of  bread  and  wine  no  supernatural  fact 
at  all.  The  Roman  theory,  of  Transubstantiation,  holds 
that  these  consecrated  elements  are  so  entirely  taken  up 
into  the  realm  of  the  supernatural  that  there  remains 
no  natural  substance.  The  bread  is  changed  into  the 
glorified  body  of  our  Lord,  and  the  wine  —  into  what?  If 
I  understand  the  Roman  theology,  I  suppose  that  it  must 
be  said  that  the  wine  is  changed  into  our  Lord's  body, 
too.  At  any  rate,  the  consecrated  elements  are  so  changed 
into  a  greater  and  heavenly  thing  that  nothing  of  the 
substance  of  bread  or  wine  remains,  but  only  appearances 
deprived  of  the  reality  which  formerly  underlay  them. 
A  theory  embraced  by  so  many  saints,  and  supported  by 
so  magnificent  a  force  of  devout  scholarship  and  conse- 
crated intellectual  power,  must  be  criticized  reverently, 
if  one  dare  criticize  it  at  all,  but  I  must  criticize  it.  I 
have  no  escape. 

For,  first,  it  seems  to  be  inconsistent  with  such  Scrip- 
tural language  as  S.  Paul's,  —  "The  bread  which  we 
break,"  and  "We  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread" 
(1  Cor.  X.  16,  17),  and  with  the  habit,  testified  to  and 
approved  by  Scriptural  usage,  of  calling  the  Service  of 
the  Holy  Eucharist  by  the  name  of  "the  breaking  of  the 
bread"  (Acts  ii.  42;  xx.  7).  Of  course,  it  will  be  rephed 
that  the  early  Christians  used  the  name  of  the  appearance 
freely  to  designate  the  great  Reality,  when  as  yet  no  one 
had  denied  that  Reality,  and  so  taught  worshipping 
saints  to  be  more  careful.  But  when  we  pass  to  the 
testimony  of  the  primitive  Church,  I  think  that  it  must 
be  said  that  we  shall  find  careful  theologians,  like  S. 
Justin  Martyr  and  S.  Irenaeus,  speaking  theologically, 


18         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

and  in  their  most  careful  theological  utterances,  making 
clear  their  belief  that  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine 
continued  still  as  bread  and  wine,  after  their  consecration 
to  be  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord. 

Of  course,  the  strength  of  the  Roman  theory  lies  in  its 
appearance  of  splendid  literalness,  —  of  taking  our 
Lord's  words  exactly  as  they  stand,  and  refusing  to 
explain  them  away,  —  and  in  its  appearance  of  exact 
conformity  to  the  language  of  the  primitive  Church, 
which  always  spoke  of  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucharist 
as  being  changed  into  something  greater,  rather  than  as 
being  made  to  receive  the  presence  of  something  greater. 
We  shall  find  that  language  of  the  latter  type,  language 
which  speaks  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  as  being 
contained  in,  or  spiritually  discerned  "in,"  or  "under," 
the  forms  of  bread  and  wine,  is  very  rare  in  the  speech  of 
primitive  Christianity.^  The  language  of  the  Fathers 
does  not  represent  our  Lord's  body  and  blood  as  being 
added  to  existing  earthly  elements  of  bread  and  wine. 
No !  the  nearly  universal  speech  of  the  Christian  Church, 
in  the  days  when  the  eucharistic  tradition  was  still  fresh, 
speaks  of  the  bread  and  wine  as  being  changed  into, 
made  to  become,  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord.  So 
far  as  the  Roman  theology  conforms  to  that  primitive 
speech,  it  has  a  very  strong  position. 

But  how  far,  after  all,  can  the  Roman  theology  claim 
this  glory  of  exact  conformity  to  the  teaching  of  the 
primitive  Church?  And  how  far  can  the  Roman  theology 
claim  "splendid  literalness"  in  interpreting  our  Lord's 
words? 

(a)  As  to  the  former  point,  I  have  already  indicated 
S.  Justin  Martyr  and  S.  Irenaeus  as  careful  theologians 
who  make  it  clear  that  in  their  eucharistic  belief  the 
1  See  Note  A,  p.  233. 


EUCHARISTIC  PRE-SUPPOSITIONS  19 

consecrated  elements  were  regarded  as  still  remaining 
bread  and  wine  in  their  natural  substances.  I  here  add 
that  in  the  controversy  over  the  Eutychian  heresy  in  the 
fifth  century  we  shall  find  Catholic  writers  maintaining 
earnestly  the  continuing  of  the  bread  and  wine  of  the 
Eucharist  as  bread  and  wine,  and  finding  therein  an 
analogy  to  the  Incarnation  of  our  Lord,  where  His  human 
nature  remains  human  nature,  though  taken  into  God. 
We  shall  find  this  maintained  particularly  interestingly 
by  that  eminent  theologian,  Theodoret,  Bp.  of  Cyrrhus, 
in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  and  by  Pope  S.  Gelasius 
(noteworthy  as  the  compiler  of  the  Gelasian  Sacramentary) 
at  the  centiu-y's  close.  Roman  theology  fails  to  echo 
primitive  theology  exactly  in  a  very  important  point. 

(b)  As  to  the  other  point,  of  "splendid  literalness," 
I  have  to  submit  that  the  Roman  theology  departs  widely 
from  literalness  of  interpretation  in  dealing  with  the 
words,  "This  is  My  blood."  If  Roman  theology  is 
literal  in  declaring  that  the  consecrated  bread  is  our 
Lord's  body,  because  it  is  changed  into  His  very  Self, 
present  in  His  body  and  blood.  His  soul,  and  His  Divinity, 
it  is  hardly  literal,  —  certainly,  not  "splendidly  literal," 
—  to  say  that  the  consecrated  wine  is  our  Lord's  blood, 
because  it  is  His  body.  The  Presence  is  exactly  the  same 
in  the  two  cases,  according  to  the  Roman  theology,  the 
great  heavenly  Reality  is  exactly  the  same  in  both.  In 
the  one  case  that  great  Reality  is  called  our  Lord's  body. 
Why?  Because  the  hallowed  bread  is  a  symbol  of  our 
Lord's  broken  body.  In  the  other  case  the  same  great 
Reality  is  called  our  Lord's  blood.  Why?  Because 
the  consecrated  wine  is  a  symbol  of  our  Lord's  shed  blood. 
Neither  "This  is  My  body"  nor  "This  is  My  blood"  is 
interpreted  literally,  when  these  two  so  different  phrases 
are  taken  to  convey  one  identical  meaning. 


so         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

(c)  And  here  I  am  obliged  to  suggest  a  further  criti- 
cism. Is  our  Lord's  glorified  body  a  body  of  flesh  and 
blood?  S.  Paul  tells  us  that  "flesh  and  blood  cannot 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God"  (1  Cor.  xv.  50).  I  have 
suggested  that  the  body  is  life's  vehicle,  and  life's  agent 
in  laying  hold  upon  the  worid.  I  add  now  that  blood 
may  be  defined  as  life's  instrument  of  renewal.  Because 
a  man's  blood  is  the  agent  of  perpetual  renewal  of  his 
bodily  life,  blood  stands  in  God's  order  as  the  symbol  of 
renewal,  and  of  life  itself.  But  then  also  blood  may  be 
said  to  represent  the  possibility  of  decay.  In  a  body 
raised  above  the  possibility  of  decay,  and  therefore  beyond 
the  need  of  renewal,  it  would  appear  that  blood  would 
have  no  longer  any  office  to  fulfil.  In  that  view  blood 
would  be  one  of  the  elements  to  be  abolished  in  the  body 
perfected.  There  are  such  elements  in  the  human  body, 
as  we  know  it.  "Meats  for  the  belly,"  says  S.  Paul, 
"and  the  belly  for  meats;  but  God  shall  destroy  both  it 
and  them"  (1  Cor.  vi.  13).  "Flesh  and  blood  cannot 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God."  Are  we  to  suppose,  then, 
that  our  perfected  bodies  will  be  bodies  of  flesh  and 
blood?  Are  we  to  suppose  that  our  perfected  bodies 
will  not  be  bodies  of  flesh  and  blood,  but  that  in  our 
Lord's  case  the  law  has  been  suspended,  and  "flesh  and 
blood"  has  inherited  the  kingdom?  Are  we  to  suppose 
that  in  this  great  particular  our  Lord  is  not  the  Pattern 
Man,  nor  our  bodies,  fashioned  anew,  to  be  truly  con- 
formed to  the  body  of  His  glory?  Nay,  I  venture  to 
assert  that  our  Lord's  resurrection-body  is  to  be  regarded 
as  a  body  of  "flesh  and  bones,"  to  use  His  own  phrase 
(S.  Luke  xxiv.  39),  and  not  of  "flesh  and  blood."  Literal 
blood  our  Lord  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  in  the  body 
of  His  glory. 

"The    Scripture    cannot    be    broken."    The    Roman 


EUCHARISTIC  PRE-SUPPOSITIONS  21 

theology  would  seem  to  be  not  "splendidly  literal,"  but 
grossly  literal  in  ascribing  to  our  Lord's  glorified  body 
literal  blood,  which  it  has  not,  and  curiously  wn-literal  in 
requiring  two  phrases,  which  literally  suggest  quite 
different  meanings,  to  sustain  precisely  the  same  meaning. 

3.  Returning  now  to  the  opposite  approach  to  our 
great  subject,  we  find  another,  and  much  more  creditable 
attempt  at  non-literal  interpretation  of  the  words  "This 
is  My  body"  in  "the  Calvinistic  Theory."  Its  upholders 
of  the  present  time  prefer  to  call  it "  the  Virtualist  Theory." 
It  maintains,  with  the  Zwinglian,  that  the  consecrated 
elements  are  mere  symbols,  that  there  is  no  Heavenly 
Reality  in  them,  but  it  insists  that  they  are,  in  the  language 
of  our  Articles  of  Religion  (Art.  XXVIII),  "effectual 
signs,"  in  the  Latin  of  the  Articles,  efficacia  signa.  Though 
mere  symbols  in  themselves,  these  elements  are  our 
Lord's  body  and  blood  in  force  and  eflScacy.  A  favorite 
formula  with  those  who  hold  the  Virtualist  Theory  is 
this:  "The  presence  of  Christ  is  to  be  looked  for  in  the 
Sacrament,  but  not  in  the  elements."  There  is  a  super- 
natural and  special  presence  of  our  Lord,  —  yea,  even 
of  His  body  and  blood,  some  followers  of  this  school 
would  say,  —  but  this  presence  is  not  associated  with  the 
consecrated  bread  and  wine.  It  is  a  presence  in  the 
faithful  receiver  only. 

As  against  the  Zwinglian  view,  this  theory  has  the 
strength  of  a  fair  recognition  of  the  element  of  mystery 
in  our  Lord's  Sacrament.  It  recognizes  that  a  great 
Reality  is  given  and  received.  As  against  the  Roman 
theory,  it  has  the  strength  of  a  just  recognition  of  the 
earthly  element  remaining  still,  even  after  the  consecra- 
tion of  the  Sacrament.  But  it  is  open  to  the  objection 
that  it  diverges  hopelessly  from  the  mind  of  the  whole 
Catholic  Church  of  the  first  five  hundred  years  of  Chris- 


«2         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

tianity,  in  denying  that  the  elements  themselves  are 
changed  by  the  consecration  in  the  Eucharist,  and  raised 
to  a  higher  and  supernatural  plane  of  being.  The  whole 
primitive  Church  certainly  held  that  the  consecrated 
elements  were  made  by  their  consecration  to  be  some- 
thing great  and  heavenly.  Further,  the  whole  primitive 
Church  held  that  unfaithful  men,  coming  to  the  Holy 
Communion,  received  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord, 
and  that  it  was  a  very  dreadful  thing  for  them  to  do,  so 
to  touch  the  Ark  with  profane  hand,  like  Uzza.  And 
surely  that  is  the  only  simple  and  natural  way  of  taking 
S.  Paul's  words  about  the  man  who  "eateth  and  drinketh 
judgment  unto  himself,  if  he  discern^  not  the  body" 
(1  Cor.  xi.  29).  Could  S.  Paul  have  thought  of  a  man  as 
eating  and  drinking  judgment,  in  an  unfitting  approach 
to  the  Sacrament,  unless  he  had  thought  of  that  bread 
and  wine  as  being  somehow  heavenly  powers?  With  all 
the  honorable  support  which  it  has  had  in  the  last  four 
centuries,  the  Virtualist  Theory  is  certainly  a  late  inven- 
tion. It  is  clearly  another  Gospel.  It  had  no  place  in 
the  Church's  mind  and  heart,  as  the  Church  came  forth 
from  the  teaching  of  the  Apostolic  Age.  The  whole 
primitive  Church  did  believe  and  maintain  that  the 
consecrated  bread  and  wine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  were 
in  some  sense  really  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord, 
having  suffered  in  the  consecration  some  transforming, 
elevating  change,  which  made  them  to  be  different  things 
from  what  they  were  before. 

4.  But  if  the  Virtualist  Theory  of  the  eucharistic 
Presence  must  be  set  down  as  a  late  invention,  so  also,  it 

*  The  margin  of  the  Revised  Versions,  both  English  and  American, 
assures  the  student  that  S.  Paul's  Greek  word  rcjiUy  means,  "discrim- 
inating." The  translation  should  be,  "if  be  fail  to  discriminate  the 
Lord's  body." 


EUCHARISTIC  PRE-SUPPOSITIONS  23 

seems  plain  to  me,  must  be  the  theory  which  I  shall  call 
for  convenience  "the  Theory  of  the  Oxford  School." 
It  is  that  which  is  found  in  the  writings  of  Dr.  Pusey,  of 
Mr.  Keble,  and  of  most  of  the  scholars  who  may  be 
classed  as  "High  Anglicans"  in  the  last  century.  A 
particularly  honored,  and  honorable,  advocate  of  this 
theory  among  living  scholars  is  Dr.  Darwell  Stone.  It 
differs  from  the  Roman  Theory  in  only  one  point, — 
a  very  crucial  point,  certainly.  It  holds  to  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucharist  in  their 
natural  and  proper  substances  after  the  consecration. 
In  this  particular  it  goes  along  with  the  thought,  and 
constant  teaching,  of  the  primitive  Church.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  states  the  Heavenly  Reality,  what  it 
calls  the  Res  Sacramenti,  in  the  precise  language  of  the 
Roman  theologians.  It  loves  to  say  that  our  Lord  is 
present  in  the  entirety  of  His  Being,  —  the  whole  Christ, 
His  body  and  blood.  His  soul.  His  Divinity,  —  in  every 
particle  of  the  bread  and  in  every  drop  of  the  wine.  It  is 
carefully  explained,  as  by  the  Roman  theologians,  that 
this  Presence  is  after  a  manner  not  known  to  our  philoso- 
phy. The  body  of  our  Lord  is  present  after  the  manner 
of  a  spirit.  The  presence  is  "supra-local,"  "hyper- 
physical."  Such  theology  can  use  Cardinal  Newman's 
language:  "When  the  consecrated  Host  is  carried  in 
procession,  the  body  of  our  Lord  does  not  move  from 
place  to  place."  About  the  philosophical  questions  thus 
raised,  I  must  speak  presently.  At  present,  I  am  con- 
cerned with  this  one  point.  According  to  the  Oxford 
Theory,  the  bread  remains,  and  a  greater  thing  is  added, 
that  is  to  say,  our  Lord's  body.  The  wine  remains,  and 
a  greater  thing  is  added,  that  is  to  say,  our  Lord's  blood. 
It  must  be  observed  that  according  to  their  view  the  con- 
secrated bread  is  not  really  our  Lord's  body;    it  is  a 


24         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

vehicle  of  His  body.  The  consecrated  wine  is  not  our 
Lord's  blood;  it  is  a  vehicle  of  His  blood.  The  followers 
of  the  Oxford  School  may  say  that  they  mean  just  exactly 
what  the  early  Christian  writers  meant.  It  remains  that 
the  natural  language  of  the  early  Christian  writers  is 
not  the  natural  language  of  these  pious  and  studious 
Anglicans. 

The  Oxford  School  says,  "Here  are  two  realities,  an 
earthly  and  a  heavenly.  The  earthly  reality  is  bread, 
and  the  heavenly  reality  is  our  Lord's  body."  But  surely 
the  Oxford  School  would  have  to  acknowledge  that  it 
finds  these  two  realities  to  be  different  realities.  The 
bread  is  one  thing;  our  Lord's  body  is  another  thing. 
But  the  primitive  Church  declares  with  one  voice  that 
the  consecrated  bread  of  the  Eucharist  is  our  Lord's 
body,  and  that  the  consecrated  wine  is  His  blood.  The 
primitive  Church  speaks  of  two  realities,  an  earthly  and 
a  heavenly,  and  does  not  try  to  tell  us  what  that  heavenly 
reality  is;  but  it  says  that  by  the  addition  of  some 
(undefined)  heavenly  power  to  the  earthly  reality  that 
earthly  reality  becomes,  —  not  contains,  but  becomes,  — 
the  body,  or  the  blood,  of  the  Lord.  Certainly,  the 
natural  language  of  the  Oxford  School  is  that  our  Lord's 
body  is  present  "m  the  bread,"  or  "under  the  form  of 
bread."  ^  Certainly,  the  natural  language  of  the  early 
Church  was  that  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  is  our  Lord's 
body,  or  is  changed  into  our  Lord's  body.  The  two 
atmospheres  are  not  the  same. 

^  For  passages  alleged  to  show  that  the  Fathers  used  such  language 
see  Note  A,  p.  233. 


EUCHARISTIC  PRE-SUPPOSITIONS  25 

VI 

The  Simplest  Theory  is  the  Best 

It  is  painful  to  me  to  follow  with  what  must  seem 
unsympathetic  criticism  some  of  the  tenderest  and  most 
devout  meditations  of  friends  whom  I  love  and  scholars 
whom  I  admire;  but  I  must  add  here,  in  closing  my 
Lecture  for  to-day,  some  critical  reflections  which  apply 
equally  to  the  Roman  Theory  and  to  that  of  the  Oxford 
School.  The  best  theory  of  any  matter  is  that  which  fits 
all  the  facts  and  accounts  for  them  most  simply. 

I  observe,  then,  (a)  that  both  the  Roman  view  and 
the  Tractarian  are  liable  to  objection  in  that  our  Lord  in 
His  Sacrament  seems  to  offer  us  two  different  gifts.  His 
body  and  His  blood,  and  these  theologians  explain  to  us 
that  the  gift  given  is  in  both  cases  one  and  the  same. 
The  theories  do  not  seem  here  quite  to  fit  the  given  facts. 
It  may  be  replied  that  the  external  symbolism  of  the 
broken  body  and  the.  shed  blood  was  so  important  in 
our  Lord's  purpose  as  fully  to  justify  His  using  these 
two  names  for  His  one  Presence  imder  two  symbolical 
veils.  Such  an  explanation  seems  to  me  not  impossible, 
but  certainly  not  simple.  A  theory  which  should  be 
able  to  fit  all  the  facts,  and  fit  them  more  simply,  would 
demand  our  respectful  attention. 

I  observe,  further,  (6)  that  these  two  theories  do  not 
seem  to  fit  the  facts  of  matter  and  spirit,  as  we  are  allowed 
to  know  them.  Both  theories  assume  that  our  Lord's 
body  is  present  in  our  Sacrament  after  the  manner  of 
spirit.  That  is,  returning  to  the  conditions  of  the  original 
Institution,  we  must  hold  that  our  Lord's  natural  body, 
not  yet  glorified,  was  raised  above  the  laws  of  matter, 
and  was  present  after  the  manner  of  spirit,  in  every 


26         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

particle  of  the  bread  and  in  every  drop  of  the  wine. 
Certainly,  our  Lord's  natural  body  could  do  supernatural 
things,  —  could  walk  on  the  sea  as  on  a  floor,  could  pass 
through  closed  doors.  But  can  any  material  body, 
even  our  Lord's  body,  exist  anywhere  after  the  manner 
of  spirit?  Can  any  presence  in  a  place  be  supra-local? 
Can  any  presence  of  a  material  body  in  a  place  be  hyper- 
physical?  Such  suggestions  seem  to  contradict  all  that 
God  has  made  known  to  us  of  His  world.  I  acknowledge 
that  this  notion  of  the  possibility  of  a  material  body 
existing  after  the  manner  of  spirit  may  be  true.  There  is 
a  modern  Philosophy  which  leans  toward  the  notion 
that  force  is  the  only  fact,  and  that  such  words  as  "spirit" 
and  "matter"  represent  only  crude  guesses  which  men 
have  made  in  their  ignorance,  to  cover  phenomena  which 
they  did  not  in  the  least  understand.  Then,  it  might  be 
added.  Almighty  God  had  to  use  these  clumsy  words  of 
ours  to  make  His  revelations  intelligible  enough  to  be 
useful.  If  God's  revelations  seem  ever  to  land  us  in  self- 
contradiction,  it  is  because  of  the  weakness  of  our  words 
and  of  our  minds.  Certainly,  if  God  has  revealed  to  us 
any  such  startling  pronouncement  as  that  matter  can 
exist  after  the  manner  of  spirit,  we  must  accept  it  as 
settled  fact.  But  I  venture  to  assert  that  Almighty 
God  has  not  revealed  any  such  thing.  The  primitive 
Church  does  not  seem  to  have  taught  any  such  thing. 
It  is  a  guess  of  theologians.^ 

'  For  a  further  difficulty   suggested   by   our  Lord's  phrase,   "My 
blood  which  is  being  poured  out,"  see  Note  B,  p.  239. 


LECTURE  II 

THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION 

ROME;   CARTHAGE;   MILAN 

IN  my  first  Lecture  I  set  forth  two  pre-suppositlons 
concerning  our  Lord's  Eucharistic  Presence,  which 
I  think  to  have  occupied  men's  minds  at  different  periods 
of  Christian  history.  Meeting  the  phrase,  "This  is  My 
body,"  the  modern  pre-supposition,  the  pre-supposition 
of  the  last  thousand  years,  is  that  the  word  "This" 
refers  to  the  Heavenly  Reality,  and  not  to  the  earthly 
element,^  and  again,  that  "My  body"  must  mean  our 
Lord's  natural  body,  and  cannot  mean  anything  else. 
Meeting  that  same  phrase,  "This  is  My  body,"  the  pre- 
supposition of  the  whole  Church  of  the  first  four  centuries, 
was,  if  I  have  rightly  understood  its  expression,  that  the 
word  "This"  referred  to  the  earthly  element,  and  that 
the  Lord's  body,  which  He  thus  announced  must,  of  course, 
be  a  body  additional  to  His  natural  body,  a  body  in- 
formed with  the  life  that  was  in  His  natural  body,  a  body 

*  The  Zwinglian  School  referred  "This"  to  the  sacramental  element, 
and  escaped  the  resulting  difficulty  by  refusing  to  the  Eucharist  any 
Heavenly  Reality  at  all.  I  am  rejoiced  to  find  among  High  Anglican 
friends  a  readiness  to  resent  this  suggestion,  and  to  say,  as  I  should  say, 
that  to  make  "This"  refer  to  anything  but  the  bread  or  wine  would  be 
ungrammatical.  It  remains  for  such  to  explain  in  what  sense  they 
hold  bread  to  he  our  Lord's  body.  That  has  not  been  made  clear  to  me. 
But  the  unexpected  agreement  is  most  welcome. 

27 


28         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

different  from  His  natural  body,  and  yet  in  a  sense  the 
same  as  the  natural  body.  I  must  now  proceed  to  an 
examination  of  the  utterances  of  the  Christian  writers  of 
these  four  centuries  to  see  whether  they  show  with  any 
clearness  the  presence  of  one  of  these  pre-suppositions, 
or  the  other.  For  the  period  preceding  the  Second 
General  Council  (Constantinople,  a.d.  381)  I  have  thought 
it  best  to  follow  a  geographical,  rather  than  a  merely 
chronological,  order,  grouping  my  writers  with  reference 
to  three  great  local  centres  of  tradition,  Rome,  Alexandria, 
Antioch.  It  seems  to  me  that  to  trace  the  tradition  of  a 
great  School  tells  more  than  to  skip  from  name  to  name, 
quoting  an  utterance  from  Italy,  and  another  from 
Egypt,  a  word  from  Jerusalem,  and  a  word  from  Con- 
stantinople, simply  because  they  were  spoken  in  that 
order  of  time.  Also,  I  begin  with  Rome,  not  only  because 
that  was  the  great  central  city  of  the  world,  where  (as 
Irenaeus  has  taught  us  in  a  famous  passage)  the  faith 
was  preserved  because  all  men  of  all  minds  resorted 
there  from  all  directions,  and  so  the  thoughts  of  all  manner 
of  thinkers  were  there  brought  into  a  focus,  but  because 
two  great  theologians,  who  resided  and  taught  in  Rome, 
and  profoundly  affected  Rome's  theological  tradition, 
had,  both  of  them,  their  own  initiation  into  the  Christian 
tradition  at  Ephesus,  and  so  were  brought  into  a  special 
nearness  to  S.  John.  S.  John  had  lived  at  Ephesus  to 
the  very  end  of  the  first  century.  S.  John  seems  to  have 
been  making  a  deep  impression  on  the  Church's  mind, 
and  doing  much  to  form  the  Church's  tradition,  long 
after  any  other  of  the  original  Apostles  of  our  Lord. 
It  follows  that  these  two  theologians,  S.  Justin  Martyr, 
who  became  a  Christian  at  Ephesus  within  thirty  years 
after  S.  John's  death,  and  was  for  some  years  a  student 
there,  and  S.  Irenaeus,  who  was  a  friend  and  follower  of 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  29 

S.  Polycarp,  the  aged  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  and  used  to  hear 
S.  Polycarp  talk  of  the  days  when  he  was  a  pupil  of  S. 
John,  —  these  two  teachers,  Justin  and  Irenaeus,  are  the 
nearest  to  a  clearly  apostolical  tradition  of  all  the  Chris- 
tian writers  who  give  us  material  for  any  theory  of  the  Eu- 
charist.    I  shall  state  as  the  subject  of  this  Lecture, 

The  Ephesine-Roman  Tradition, 

and  I  shall  note  the  names  of  three  cities  in  which  that 
tradition  flourished,  Rome,  Carthage,  Milan. 

A.    The  Ephesine-Roman  Teachers 


S.  Justin  Martyr,  Philosopher  {circa  a.d.  150) 

I  begin  with  the  testimony  of  S.  Justin  Martyr.  In 
his  First  Apology,  Chapter  66,  he  gives  an  account  of 
the  Christian  Eucharist, 

"of  which,"  he  says,  "no  one  is  allowed  to  partake  but  the 
man  who  believes  that  the  things  which  we  teach  are  true,  and 
has  been  washed  with  the  washing  that  is  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  is  so  Uving  as  Christ  hath  enjoined.  For  not  as  com- 
mon bread  and  common  drink  do  we  receive  these  things,  but  in 
Hke  manner  as  Jesus  Christ,  our  Saviour,  having  been  made 
flesh  by  the  Word  of  God  ["Word  of  God"  is  here  a  title  of  the 
Holy  Ghost]  had  both  flesh  and  blood  for  our  salvation,  so  like- 
wise have  we  been  taught  that  the  food  which  has  been  blessed 
by  the  invocation  of  the  Word  that  is  from  Him,  and  from  which 
our  blood  and  flesh  are  by  transmutation  nourished,  is  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  that  Jesus  who  was  made  flesh.  For  the  Apostles, 
in  the  Memoirs  composed  by  them,  which  are  called  '  Gospels, ' 
have  thus  delivered  unto  us  what  was  enjoined  upon  them,  that 
Jesus  took  bread,  and  when  He  had  given  thanks,  said,  'This 


80         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

is  My  body, '  and  that  after  the  same  manner,  liaving  taken  the 
cup,  and  given  thanks,  He  said,  'This  is  My  blood,'  giving  it  to 
them  alone. "  ^ 

Two  points  come  out  very  clearly.  First,  the  consecrated 
bread  is  still  bread  in  S.  Justin's  view.  It  is  not  "common 
bread."  A  startling  change  has  come  upon  it.  Of  that 
I  must  speak  presently.  But  still  these  elements  con- 
tinue to  be  bread  and  wine,  "from  which  our  blood  and 
flesh  are  by  transmutation  nourished."  A  modern 
Roman  theologian  may  insist  that  "nourishment"  is 
one  of  the  "accidents,"  which  remain,  according  to 
Roman  theory,  when  "the  substance"  of  bread  and  wine 
has  ceased  to  be.  Granted,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  such  a  notion  is  philosophically  conceivable.  But 
what  could  have  been  S.  Justin's  object  in  introducing 
such  a  phrase  as  this  in  writing  to  the  heathen  Emperor? 
The  only  idea  that  Justin's  words  could  have  conveyed 
to  Antoninus  Pius,  and  the  only  idea  that  Justin's  words 
could  have  been  intended  to  convey,  was  just  simply  this, 
that  the  bread  and  wine,  so  wonderfully  transformed, 
were  transformed  by  a  glorifying  addition,  loithout  losing 
anything  of  their  natural  conditions  in  the  change. 

We  turn,  then,  secondly,  to  S.  Justin's  view  of  the 
great  transformation,  on  the  positive  side,  and  we  find 
him  presenting  It  as  something  analogous  to  our  Lord's 
Incarnation.  As  our  Lord  took  material  elements  of  the 
substance  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  by  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  here  called  "the  Word  of  God,"  so  by 
the  operation  of  the  same  Word  -  our  Lord  takes  to  Hlm- 

1  Patrologia  Graeca,  6,  col.  428,  429. 

^  S.  Justin's  phrase  is  5i'  tixvs  \6yov  rov  irap'  airrov.  I  should 
render  this,  "by  invocation  of  the  Word  that  proceeds  from  Him,"  that 
is,  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Dr.  Pusey  translates,  "  by  the  prayer  of  the  word 
which  is  from  Him,"  on  p.  319  of  The  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  31 

self  material  elements  of  bread  and  wine,  and  makes 
them  to  be  somehow  His  body  and  His  blood.  If  S.  Jus- 
tin had  wished  to  say  that  these  elements  received  a  myste- 
rious presence  of  our  Lord's  body  he  could  have  said  so, 
and  it  might  even  have  been  a  simple  thing  to  say.  What 
he  does  say  is,  that  as  our  Lord  once  incarnated  Himself 
by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  making  human  flesh  to 
be  His  body,  so  He  now  makes  bread  and  wine  to  be 
His  body  and  His  blood. 

II 

S.  Irenaeus,  Bishop  (circa  a.d.  175) 

The  next  witness  to  be  heard  is  S.  Irenaeus.  Though 
Bishop  of  Lugdunum  in  Southern  Gaul  (our  modern 
"Lyons"),  he  had  been  a  pupil  of  S.  Polycarp,  who  was  a 
pupil  of  S.  John,  and  he  knew  Rome  intimately  as  well. 
He  uses  the  generally  accepted  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist 
to  enforce  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
on  this  wise : 

as  taught  by  the  Fathers,  but  paraphrases,  "by  prayer  in  His  words" 
(plural),  on  p.  144. 

Bishop  Hedley  (R.  C.)  in  his  book.  The  Holy  Eucharist,  p.  25, 
renders  it,  "by  the  utterance  in  prayer  of  the  word  derived  from  Him." 
Whether  Justin's  phrase,  here  used,  is  to  be  taken  as  meaning,  "by 
invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  or  "by  the  recital  of  our  Lord's  two 
phrases, '  This  is  My  body,' '  This  is  My  blood,'  "  it  is  certainly  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Catholic  Church  that  the  consecration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist 
is  an  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  S.  Justin's  intention  to  draw  a 
parallel  between  the  Mystery  of  the  Incarnation  and  the  Mystery  of  the 
Eucharist  is  unmistakable.  It  may  be  remarked  that  the  recital  of  our 
Lord's  words  of  distribution  in  the  Canon  of  the  Eucharist  is  not  "prayer 
in  His  words,"  and  that  "utterance  in  prayer  of  the  word  derived  from 
Him"  is  quite  impossible  as  a  translation  of  the  Greek  words  given 
above.  Somehow  or  other,  5i'  evxv^  means,  "by  prayer."  For  the 
use  of  the  title  "Word"  see  Note  C,  p.  241. 


32         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

"How  say  they  that  that  flesh  passeth  to  corruption,  and 
partaketh  not  of  life,  which  is  nourished  from  the  body  of  the 
Lord  and  His  blood?  Either  let  them  change  their  mind,  or 
abstain  from  offering  the  things  above  spoken  of.  But  our 
meaning  is  in  harmony  with  the  Eucharist,  and  the  Eucharist 
confirms  our  meaning.  And  we  offer  to  Him  His  own,  carefully 
teaching  the  communication  and  union,  and  confessing  the 
resurrection  of  the  flesh  and  spirit.  For  as  the  bread  from  the 
earth,  receiving  the  invocation  of  God,^  is  no  longer  common 
bread,  but  the  Eucharist,  consisting  of  two  things,  an  earthly 
and  a  heavenly,  so  also  our  bodies,  receiving  the  Eucharist,  are 
no  longer  perishable,  having  the  hope  of  the  resurrection  to  life 
everlasting."  * 

Here  we  have  the  same  teaching  as  in  Justin  Martyr, 
that  the  consecrated  elements  are  no  longer  "common," 
and  yet  that  the  common  bread  remains,  with  its  power 
to  nourish.  In  fact,  the  Eucharist  consists  of  "two  things, 
an  earthly  and  a  heavenly."  And  here  comes  a  very 
critical  question.  Does  Irenaeus  mean  to  say  that  the 
"earthly  thing"  is  the  "heavenly  thing"?  I  confess  that 
that  does  not  seem  to  me  possible.  But  Irenaeus  and 
Justin  and  all  the  Fathers  say  that  the  bread  of  the 
Eucharist  is  after  consecration  the  body  of  our  Lord. 
We  may  express  the  idea  by  an  equation:  the  "earthly 
thing"  (bread)  +  the  "heavenly  thing"  =  "the  body  of 
our  Lord."  Or  again,  the  "earthly  thing"  (wine)  + 
"the  heavenly  thing"  =  "the  blood  of  our  Lord."  There 
is  nothing  to  show  (what  seems  to  be  assumed  in  modem 
writing)  that  S.  Irenaeus  held  the  "heavenly  thing" 
of  the  Eucharist  to  be  itself  our  Lord's  body.     What 

^  It  may  be  noted  that  Irenaeus  seems  to  regard  the  consecration  as 
effected  by  prayer,  rather  than  by  formula.  His  language  harmonizes 
with  the  interpretation  which  I  have  given  to  S.  Justin's  "prayer  of  the 
Word  that  is  from  Him." 

«  Adv.  Haer.  IV.  xviii.  5;    P.  G.  7,  1028,  1029. 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  33 

Irenaeus  did  hold  to  be  the  "heavenly  thing"  of  the 
Eucharist  will  appear  from  another  passage.  It  is  in 
the  Adversus  Haereses,  V.  ii,  2,  3.  He  is  again  arguing 
for  the  resurrection  of  man's  body  against  the  objections 
arising  out  of  a  falsely  "spiritual"  conception  of  the 
universe. 

"Since  we  are  His  members,  and  are  nourished  through  the 
creature,  and  He  Himself  giveth  us  the  creature,  making  His 
sun  to  rise,  and  raining,  as  He  wiUeth,  He  owned  the  cup  which 
is  from  the  creature  to  be  His  own  blood,  from  which  He  be- 
deweth  our  blood,  and  the  bread  from  the  creature  He  aflSrmed 
to  be  His  own  body,  from  which  He  increaseth  our  bodies. 
When,  then,  both  the  mingled  cup  and  the  created  bread  receive 
the  Word  of  God,  and  the  Eucharist  becometh  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,^  and  from  it  the  substance  of  our  flesh  is  increased, 
and  consisteth,  how  do  they  say  that  the  flesh  is  not  capable  of 
receiving  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  eternal  Ufe,  [that  flesh] 
which  is  nourished  by  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  and  is 
His  member,  as  the  blessed  Paul  saith  that  we  are  all  'members 
of  His  body,  of  His  flesh  and  of  His  bones,'  not  speaking  thus 
of  some  spiritual  and  invisible  man,  for  a  spirit  hath  not  bones 
nor  flesh,  but  of  the  dispensation  by  which  our  Lord  became  an 
actual  man,  consisting  of  flesh  and  sinews  and  bones,  —  [that 
flesh,  I  say,]  which  is  nourished  both  from  His  cup  which  is  His 
blood,  and  from  the  bread  which  is  His  body.  And  just  as  a 
cutting  from  the  vine  planted  in  the  ground  f ructifieth  in  its  due 
season,  and  the  corn  of  wheat,  falling  into  the  earth  and  be- 
coming decomposed,  riseth  with  manifold  increase  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  who  containeth  all  things,  and  then  through  the  wisdom  of 
God  serveth  for  the  use  of  men,  and  haviag  received  the  Word 
of  God,  becometh  the  Eucharist,  which  is  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ;  so  also  our  bodies,  being  nourished  by  it,  and  deposited 

*  The  Greek  original,  here  happily  preserved,  runs  thus:  Kal  ylverat  4 
tixapiarria  aribfia  Xpiffrov.  "The  Eucharist  becomes  a  body  of  Christ," 
or  "becomes  body  of  Christ,"  not  "the  body  of  Christ."  For  some 
words  on  this  distinction  see  Appendix  I,  pp.  220-222. 


34         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

in  the  earth,  and  suffering  decomposition  there,  shall  rise  at 
their  appointed  time,  the  Word  of  God  granting  them  resurrec- 
tion to  the  glory  of  God,  even  the  Father. "  * 

I  note  with  interest  the  repeated  references  to  the 
eucharistic  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  as  nourishing 
our  bodies  and  bedewing  our  blood,  but  my  chief  concern 
in  quoting  this  passage  is  to  give  the  answer  of  S.  Irenaeus 
to  the  question,  "What  is  that  'heavenly  part'  which  is 
added  to  the  earthly  elements?"  Irenaeus  says  that  it 
is  "the  Word  of  God."  He  does  not  say  that  it  is  "the 
body  of  the  Lord."  He  says  that  it  is  "the  Word." 
This  seems  to  me  to  be  S.  Justin's  thought  again.  The 
Eucharist  is  a  sort  of  second  Incarnation.  The  Word  of 
God  takes  to  Himself  these  material  elements  and  lives 
in  them,  and  they  become  His  body  and  His  blood.  And 
certainly,  the  "Word  of  God"  here  mentioned  is  not 
our  Lord's  phrase,  "This  is  My  body,"  regarded  as  a 
formula  of  consecration.  "The  Word  of  God  granting 
them  resurrection"  is  a  phrase  which  sufficiently  estab- 
lishes that  this  is  a  use  of  S.  John's  great  title  for  our 
Lord  Himself.  I  will  not  enter  upon  the  question  whether 
our  Lord  by  His  omnipresence  is  everywhere  present  in 
His  body,  "after  the  manner  of  spirit."  I  do  not  think 
it,  but  I  will  not  venture  to  deny  it.  Only  I  will  suggest 
that  as  at  every  Baptism  our  Lord  through  the  operation 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  visits  some  child  of  man,  imparting 
to  the  person  thus  baptized  a  share  in  our  Lord's  human 
life,  incarnating  Himself  anew  in  this  new  Christian,  so 
our  Lord  may  visit  the  elements  of  every  Christian 
Eucharist,  incarnating  Himself  in  this  bread  and  wine. 
He,  with  His  Gift  of  Life,  is  "the  Heavenly  Part."  Such 
seems  to  me  to  be  the  theology  of  Irenaeus. 

»  P.  G.  7.  1124.  1125. 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  35 

Before  leaving  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus  I  must  make 
one  remark  on  what  I  have  been  reading  from  him,  and 
then  add  two  further  extracts  from  his  writings.  First, 
I  must  remark  that  when  Irenaeus  speaks  of  our  Lord 
as  acknowledging  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucharist  to 
be  "His  own  body"  and  "His  own  blood,"  we  must  not 
assume,  as  the  modern  mind  is  likely  to  assume,  that 
"His  own  body"  means  necessarily  "His  natural  body." 
Modern  readers  start  with  such  a  pre-supposition,  that 
there  is,  and  can  be,  no  other  body  which  is  our  Lord's 
own  body.  If,  as  I  suppose,  S.  Irenaeus  had  the  opposite 
pre-supposition,  that,  of  course,  our  Lord's  eucharistic 
body  was  (in  a  sense)  another  body  from  His  natural 
body,  he  could  as  perfectly  naturally  write  of  our  Lord's 
acknowledging  the  body  of  the  Eucharist  to  be  His  very 
own,  as  if  he  were  referring  to  the  body  natural. 

I  proceed  to  offer  two  extracts  which  will  curiously 
balance  each  other.  The  former  one  is  taken  from  the 
fifth  book  of  the  Adversus  Haereses  (ii,  2),  from  an  argu- 
ment directed  against  those  heretics  who  denied  the 
resurrection  of  the  flesh. 

"But  if  it  will  not  be  saved,"  says  Irenaeus,  "in  truth,  the 
Lord  hath  not  redeemed  us  by  His  blood,  nor  is  the  cup  of  the 
Eucharist  the  communication  of  His  blood,  nor  the  bread  which 
we  break  the  communication  of  His  body.  For  blood  is  not, 
save  of  veins  and  flesh  and  of  the  rest  of  human  substance,  in 
which  the  Word  of  God  was  truly  made.  By  His  blood  He 
redeemed  us,  as  also  His  Apostle  saith:  'In  whom  we  have 
redemption  through  His  blood,  even  the  remission  of  our 
sins."  1 

What  does  Irenaeus  mean?  He  is  arguing  against  the 
falsely  spiritual  notion  that  regards  matter  as  essentially 

1  P.  G.  7, 1125. 


86         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

evil,  and  he  appeals  to  the  well-known  fact  that  our 
salvation  is  declared  in  God's  own  teaching  to  be  de- 
pendent on  material  things.  We  are  saved  by  the  blood 
of  Christ.  We  receive  a  material  element  which  He 
names  with  the  name  of  His  own  blood  in  the  Eucharist. 
But  certainly  "blood"  is  a  word  of  material  association. 
"Blood"  (in  the  natural  sense)  animates  flesh,  and 
pours  through  veins.  If  our  Lord  never  had  a  real  body, 
there  could  be  no  such  thing  as  salvation  through  His 
blood,  nor  any  giving  of  anything  that  could  be  called 
His  "blood."  There  must  be  blood  in  a  natural  sense, 
or  there  could  not  be  blood  in  the  sacramental  sense,  is 
the  thought  of  our  saint. 

That  I  have  a  right  to  represent  Irenaeus  as  distinguish- 
ing in  his  own  mind  between  a  natural  and  a  sacramental 
sense  of  such  a  phrase  as  "the  blood  of  our  Lord,"  will 
appear  plainly  from  the  next,  which  shall  be  our  last, 
extract.  It  is  taken  from  a  Commentary  on  1  Peter  iii. 
by  Ecumenius,  a  writer  of  the  tenth  century,  who  was 
able  to  quote  from  a  writing  of  Irenaeus,  which  is  now 
no  longer  extant. 

"When  the  Greeks,  having  arrested  the  slaves  of  Christian 
catechumens,  then  used  force  against  them,  in  order  to  learn 
from  them  some  secret  thing  (practised)  among  Christians, 
these  having  nothing  to  say  that  would  meet  the  wishes  of  their 
tormentors,  except  that  they  had  heard  from  their  masters  that 
the  divine  Communion  was  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and 
imagining  that  it  was  actually  flesh  and  blood,  gave  their  in- 
quisitors answer  to  that  effect." 

The  story,  as  taken  from  Irenaeus,  goes  on  to  tell  how 
the  charge  was  brought  against  the  martyr,  Blandina, 
and  she 

"replied  very  admirably  in  these  words:  'How  should  those 
persons  endure  such  accusations  who  for  the  sake  of  the  practise 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  37 

of  piety,  did  not  avail  themselves  even  of  the  flesh  that  was 
permitted  them  ? ' "  ^ 

Now  all  the  early  Christians  believed  that  what  they 
received  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  "actually  flesh  and 
blood"  —  in  a  sense.  How  then  could  the  martyr 
Blandina  indignantly  deny  the  accusation,  and  the 
bishop,  Irenaeus,  commend  her  for  doing  so?  Because 
the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Holy  Communion  were  not 
held  to  be  bread  and  wine  in  a  literal  sense.  The  eucha- 
ristic  body  of  our  Lord  could  be  described  as  the  flesh  of 
the  Lord  Himself,  and  even  as  the  flesh  which  rose  from 
the  grave  and  went  into  heaven,  or  it  could  equally  be 
said  that  it  was  not  flesh  at  all.  The  language  of  the 
Fathers,  the  belief  of  the  Fathers,  makes  room  for  both 
kinds  of  utterance. 

B.    The  North  African  School 

We  shall  find  the  same  paradoxical  contrast  in  the 
language  of  Tertullian  of  Carthage,  the  priest  who  brought 
to  his  theology  the  training  of  a  lawyer.  The  Roman 
Church  itself  produced  few  writers  in  the  first  four  Chris- 
tian centuries,  and  none  that  offer  us  any  help  for  our 
present  study;  but  it  taught  some  other  Churches,  and 
Chiu-ches  which  produced  very  eminent  writers,  its  own 
particular  tradition.  Rome  was  the  natural  source  of 
intellectual  fashions  to  Northern  Italy  in  one  direction, 
and  to  the  Province  of  Africa,  —  Carthage  and  its  be- 
longings, —  in  another.  We  shall  be  following  faithfully 
the  line  of  the  Ephesine-Roman  tradition,  if  we  pass 
from  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus  to  African  Tertullian 
and  Cyprian,  and  then  to  Ambrose  of  Milan,  and  his 
imitator,  the  author  of  the  treatise,  De  Sacrameniis. 

1  P.  G.  7, 1236. 


88        THE  EUCHABJSTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

III 

Tertullian,  Lawyer,  Presbyter,  Schismatic 
(circa  a.d.  200) 

We  take  first  the  language  of  Tertullian.  He  is  insis- 
tent that  we  receive  our  Lord's  body  in  the  Eucharist. 
In  his  book  on  Idolatry  he  is  fierce  against  the  maker  of 
idols  who  dares  to  approach  the  altar.  "Mourning  .  .  . 
that  he  should  approach  those  hands  to  the  body  of  the 
Lord,  which  bestowed  bodies  on  demons.  .  .  .  Whose 
hands  ought  more  to  be  cut  off  than  those  by  which  the 
body  of  the  Lord  is  offended?"  ^ 

That  Tertullian  holds  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucha- 
rist to  be  themselves  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  and 
not  merely  vehicles  of  those  mighty  powers,  appears  in 
his  book  On  the  Resurrection  of  the  Flesh,  where  he  uses 
this  very  remarkable  language,  —  "The  flesh  feeds  on 
the  body  of  Christ,  that  the  soul,  too,  may  be  fattened 
from  God"  (De  Res.  Cam.  8).  The  body  of  om*  Lord  is 
something  that  nourishes  human  flesh.^  On  the  other 
hand,  he  speaks  of  the  consecrated  elements  as  "bread" 
and  "wine."  "We  feel  pained  if  any  of  the  wine,  or 
even  of  our  bread,  be  spilled  upon  the  ground."  '    In 

1  De  Idol.  7;   P.  L.  I.  669. 

*  The  reference  is  P.  L.  2,  852.  It  is,  of  course,  open  to  the  Roman 
theologian  to  say  that  the  power  to  nourish  is  one  of  the  "accidents"  of 
the  eucharistic  bread,  and  so  the  glorified  body  of  our  Lord  has  power  to 
nourish  the  body  of  the  receiver.  But  certainly,  unless  a  man  holds 
that  the  bread  has  disappeared,  leaving  its  "power  to  nourish"  as  an 
attribute  of  another  substance,  such  a  phrase  as  "The  flesh  feeds  on 
the  body  of  Christ"  is  clear  and  emphatic  for  the  belief  that  it  is  the 
bread  itself  which  is  the  body  of  Christ.  But  Tertullian,  as  I  shall 
proceed  at  once  to  show,  held  no  such  belief  as  that  the  bread  ceases  to  be. 

«  De  Corona,  3;  P.  L.  2,  99. 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  39 

fact,  he  appeals  to  the  outward  senses  with  all  confidence, 
as  witnessing  truly,  as  far  as  they  go. 

"We  may  not,  we  may  not,  call  in  question  those  senses,  lest 
their  truth  should  be  questioned  m  Christ  Himself,  lest  it  should 
be  said,  perchance,  that  He  saw  untruly  Satan  cast  down  from 
heaven;  or  heard  untruly  the  voice  of  the  Father  bearing 
witness  of  Him;  or  was  deceived  when  He  touched  Peter's 
mother-in-law;  or  perceived  as  other  than  it  was  the  breath  of 
the  ointment  which  He  accepted  for  His  burial;  or  afterwards 
the  taste  of  the  wine  which  He  consecrated  to  be  a  memorial  of 
His  blood.  For  so  Marcion  preferred  to  believe  Him  a  phan- 
tom, denying  to  Him  the  reality  of  a  perfect  body."  ^ 

A  Roman  theologian  might  think  Tertullian's  argu- 
ment that  if  our  senses  could  be  deceived  in  a  sacrament, 
then  our  Lord's  senses  might  be  supposed  to  have  been 
deceived  in  any  of  the  experiences  of  His  earthly  life, 
to  be  an  absurdly  unfair  argument.  Tertullian's  argu- 
ments were  often  unfair,  and  some  of  them  were  even 
absurd.  But  certainly,  the  man  who  advanced  that 
argument  did  not  think  that  the  senses  were  deceived  in 
the  presence  of  the  eucharistic  elements.  Furthermore, 
it  is  to  be  noted  that  Tertullian  was  here  arguing  against 
the  Docetic  heresy  of  Marcion,  who  refused  to  believe 
that  our  Lord  had  any  material  body  of  flesh  and  blood 
at  all.  If,  then,  the  Marcionites  could  have  pointed  to 
the  accepted  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church  as  teaching 
that  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine  had  no  longer  any 
material  existence,  the  retort,  as  Dr.  Pusey  well  points 
out  {Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  as  taught  by  the  Fathers, 
79,  80),  would  have  been  absolutely  crushing.  But  let 
it  be  observed  that  when  Tertullian  is  trying  to  prove  by 
the  material  reality  of  the  eucharistic  bread  and  wine 
the  material  reality  of  our  Lord's  natural  body  of  flesh 

1  De  Anima,  17;    P.  L.  2,  718. 


40         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

and  blood,  he  describes  the  eucharistic  wine  as  a  "memo- 
rial" of  our  Lord's  natural  blood.  The  natural  blood  is 
one  thing;  the  "blood"  of  the  Eucharist  is  another. 
In  like  manner,  in  his  book  against  INIarcion,  Tertullian 
twice  calls  the  eucharistic  bread  a  "figure"  of  our  Lord's 
body  natural.  His  argument  is  precisely  that  a  real  thing, 
which  the  eucharistic  bread  confessedly  is,  cannot  be  any 
proper  "figure"  of  a  thing  which  is  not  real.  The  first 
of  these  passages  runs  thus: 

"For  as  God  revealed  in  your  Gospel,^  too,  calling  bread  HOls 
body,  that  hence,  too,  thou  mayest  at  once  understand  that  He 
gave  to  bread  to  be  a  figure  ^  of  His  body,  for  whose  body  the 
prophet  aforetime  used  bread  as  a  figure,  the  Lord  Himself 
designing  to  give  an  interpretation  of  this  mystery  by  and  by."  ' 

Later  in  the  same  treatise  Tertullian  has  a  long  passage, 
as  follows: 

"Having  declared,  'with  desire  have  I  desired  to  eat  this 
Passover,'  [treating  it]  as  His  own  (for  it  were  unworthy  that 
God  should  desire  anything  not  His  own).  He  made  the  bread 
which  He  took  and  distributed  to  His  disciples  to  be  that  body  of 
His,  saying,  'This  is  My  body,'  that  is,  the  figure  of  My  body. 
But  it  would  not  be  a  figure  imless  His  body  were  a  veritable 
body.*  But  an  empty  thing,  as  a  phantom  is,  can  admit  of  no 
figure  of  itself.  Or  if  He  pretended  that  the  bread  was  His 
body,  because  He  had  in  truth  no  body,  He  must  have  given 

^  It  will  be  remembered  that  Marcion  recognized  no  Gospel  but 
that  of  S.  Luke. 

'  Tertullian  has  just  been  quoting  from  Jeremiah  xi,  19,  "Come, 
let  us  destroy  the  tree  with  the  bread  (English  Versions,  "fruit")  there- 
of." The  Fathers  found  in  this  verse  a  reference  to  the  Cross  and  the 
eucharistic  bread.  Some  remarks  on  current  translations  of  this 
passage  may  be  found  in  Note  D,   p.  247. 

»  Adv.  Marcion.,  III.  19;    P.  L.  i.  376. 

*  Tertulliau's  phrase  is  corpus  veritatis,  "a  body  of  truth." 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  41 

bread  for  us.  It  would  fit  with  the  emptiness  of  Marcion,  that 
bread  should  have  been  crucified.  But  why  doth  He  call  bread 
His  body,  and  not  rather  a  pumpkin,  which  is  what  Marcion  must 
have  had  in  place  of  a  heart?  Marcion  did  not  understand  that 
that  was  an  ancient  figure  of  the  body  of  Christ,  who  said  Him- 
self through  Jeremiah,  'They  have  devised  devices  against  me, 
saying,  Let  us  cast  wood  on  His  bread, '  that  is  the  Cross  on  His 
body.  Therefore  the  Illuminator  of  the  things  of  old  hath 
plainly  shown  what  He  meant  bread  to  signify,  calling  bread 
His  own  body. "  ^ 

To  Tertullian,  then,  the  hallowed  bread  appeared  to 
be  a  figure  of  our  Lord's  body  natural,  and  he  seems  to 
have  found  a  close  parallel  between  the  figure  by  which 
the  eucharistic  bread  was  called  our  Lord's  "body,"  and 
that  by  which  our  Lord's  body  was  called  "bread." 
Our  Lord's  body  was  called  bread,  because  it  was  intended 
that  in  His  good  time  it  should  perform  the  office  of  a 
great,  world-wide  nourishment.  The  eucharistic  bread 
was  called  our  Lord's  body,  because  it  was  consecrated 
to  perform  the  office  of  a  body  for  Him,  becoming  in  very 
truth  a  vehicle  of  His  life,  an  instrument  of  His  activity, 
and  even  a  means  of  His  partial  manifestation  of  Himself 
to  men.  And  yet  Tertullian  meant  so  very  much  more 
by  this  phrase,  "figure  of  [our  Lord's]  body,"  than  the 
empty  symbol,  the  poor  and  powerless  picture,  which 
modern  theologians  have  commonly  meant  by  "figure," 
that  he  is  able  to  say  in  the  very  same  breath  these  two 
seemingly  contradictory  things,  that  our  Lord  made  this 
bread  to  be  His  own  body,  and  that  when  He  said,  "This 
is  My  body,"  He  meant,  "This  is  the  figure  of  My  body."  ^ 

1  Adv.  Marcion.,  IV.  40;    P.  L.  2,  491,  492. 

*  It  will  be  claimed  by  some  of  those  theologians  to  whom  I  feel 
myself  to  be  nearest,  and  of  whose  devout  thoughts  I  am  most  tender, 
that  I  am  here  making  an  unhappy  mistake.  "We  hold,"  they  will 
say,  "as  truly  as  Tertullian  did,  that  the  hallowed  bread  is  a  figure  of 


42         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

It  is  necessary  to  take  note  of  some  utterances  of 
Tertullian  which  might  be  urged  by  objectors  as  incon- 
sistent with  the  Hne  of  thought  which  is  here  ascribed  to 
him.  Thus  he  is  quoted  as  referring  to  our  Lord's  body 
as  present  in  the  bread,  and  His  blood  as  present  in  the 
wine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  One  such  passage  is  found 
in  Chapter  6  of  the  Treatise  De  Oratione: 

"In  bread  is  understood  His  body."  * 

I  would  remark  that  Tertullian  is  here  commenting 
on  the  phrase,  "Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread,"  in  the 
Lord's  Prayer.  He  reminds  us  that  Christ  is  called 
"the  Bread  of  Life."  Then  he  adds  that  "in  bread  too 
is  understood  His  body."  It  is  just  such  a  use  of  "in" 
as  when  one  says,  "We  may  see  in  Napoleon  an  instru- 
ment of  God's  wrath  against  the  nations."  It  is  a  phrase 
of  identity.  Only  so  will  it  be  consistent  with  Ter- 
tullian's  more  ordinary  speech. 

Another  example  of  this  use  of  "in"  is  found  in  Book 
rV,  Chapter  40,  of  the  Adversus  Marcionem,  from  which 
a  quotation  has  been  made  above,  where  Tertullian  is 
commenting  on  Gen.  xlix.  11,  —  "He  washed  His  garments 

our  Lord's  body,  but  we  utterly  disown  the  interpretation  that  you  put 
upon  Tertullian's  phrase."  I  must  press  upon  them,  then,  to  make 
my  point  clear,  that  they  do  not  hold,  in  any  such  way  as  Tertullian  did. 
that  the  hallowed  bread  is  our  Lord's  body.  They  hold  that  the  Sacra- 
ment consists  of  two  parts,  an  earthly  and  a  heavenly,  —  bread  and  our 
Lord's  body.  They  do  not  hold  that  the  earthly  part  is  the  heavenly 
part,  and  Tertullian  did  hold  that  the  earthly  part  is  made  to  be  the  body 
of  the  Lord.  Distinguishing,  as  I  seem  to  find  that  Tertullian  did  dis- 
tinguish, between  the  natural  body  of  our  Lord  and  His  sacramental 
body,  he  could  say,  with  perfect  naturalness,  either  "He  made  bread 
to  be  His  own  body  (sacramental),"  or  "This  is  My  body  (sacramentaO, 
that  is,  the  figure  of  My  body  (natural)."  Tertullian's  use  of  "figure" 
will  be  considered  further  in  Note  E,  p.  25£. 
1  P.  L.  1,  IIGO. 


i 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  43 

in  wine,  and  His  clothes  in  the  blood  of  grapes."  Here 
our  author  says,  certainly,  "He  consecrated  His  blood  in 
wine";  but  let  it  be  observed  how  the  sentence  continues, 
—  "who  then  figured  forth  wine  in  blood."  It  is  the 
"in"  of  identity  in  both  cases. ^ 

It  remains  that  earlier  in  this  same  chapter  of  the 
Adv.  Marcion.  Tertullian,  arguing  for  the  reality  of  our 
Lord's  body  against  Docetic  notions,  uses  these  words: 

"Mentioning  the  cup,  and  making  the  Testament  to  be  sealed 
in  His  blood,  He  affirms  the  reality  of  His  body.  For  there  can- 
not be  blood  of  any  body,  which  is  not  a  body  of  flesh.  If  any 
sort  of  body  were  presented  to  our  view,  which  is  not  one  of  flesh, 
not  being  fleshly,  it  would  not  possess  blood.  Thus  from  the 
evidence  of  the  flesh,  we  get  a  proof  of  the  body,  and  from  the 
evidence  of  the  blood,  a  proof  of  the  flesh.  In  order,  however, 
that  you  may  discover  how  anciently  wine  is  used  as  a  figure 
for  blood,  tmn  to  Isaiah,  who  asks,  'Who  is  this  that  cometh 
from  Edom,  with  dyed  garments  from  Bozrah.'* ' " 

"There  cannot  be  blood  of  any  body  which  is  not  a 
body  of  flesh."  Certainly  not.  But  Tertullian  was 
here  thinking  of  our  Lord's  natural  body,  and  of  bodies 
in  the  natural  order.  If  Tertullian  held  the  view  which 
this  Lecture  ascribes  to  him,  he  would  not  have  regarded 
the  blood  of  our  Lord  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  as  "blood  of 
a  body."  But  like  S.  Irenaeus,  he  would  argue  that  if 
wine  could  be  truly  a  figure  of  our  Lord's  blood,  then  our 

*  Compare  also  the  immediately  preceding  context.  "In  His 
garments  and  clothes  the  prophecy  pointed  out  His  flesh,  and  His  blood 
in  the  wine.  Thus  did  He  now  consecrate  His  blood  in  wine."  The 
"in"  of  identity  appears  in  the  former  sentence  in  both  its  clauses,  — 
"in  His  garments,"  "in  the  wine."  The  same  use  of  "in"  is  found  in 
the  second  clause  of  the  other  sentence,  —  "  figured  forth  wine  in  blood." 
It  seems  a  particularly  natural  supposition  that  Tertullian  was  using 
the  word  "in"  with  just  the  same  shade  of  meaning  in  the  clause  which 
comes  between. 


44         THE  EUCILVRISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Lord  must  have  had  real  blood  (in  the  ordinary,  natural 
use  of  words),  and  if  He  had  real  (natural)  blood,  He 
must  have  had  a  real  (natural)  body.  When  Tertullian 
wrote  that  "from  the  evidence  of  the  flesh  we  get  a  proof 
of  the  body,"  or  (as  Dr.  Pusey  prefers  to  render  the 
words)  that  "the  proof  of  a  body  consisteth  in  the  testi- 
mony as  to  flesh,"  he  would  have  been  very  much  aston- 
ished, if  some  one  had  charged  him  with  saying  that  the 
Church  could  not  be  called  our  Lord's  body,  not  being  a 
body  of  flesh  and  blood,  or  with  making  out  that  our 
Lord's  body  mystical,  or  (I  may  add)  His  body  sacra- 
mental, must  necessarily  be  a  body  of  flesh  and  blood. 


IV 

S.  Ctprian,  of  Carthage,  Archbishop  and  Martyr 
(circa  a.d.  250) 

We  pass  on  to  S.  Cyprian,  half  a  century  later.  His 
writings  are  rich  in  expressions  of  his  intense  conviction 
that  the  sacramental  elements  were  things  of  great  and 
mysterious  power.  No  Virtualist  theory  can  tolerate  S. 
Cyprian,  nor  S.  Cyprian  any  Virtualist  theory.  I  will 
not  multiply  quotations  for  so  simple  a  point  as  that. 
It  will  be  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  stories  which  he  tells  of 
persons  who  in  one  way  or  another  profaned  the  Sacra- 
ment. They  are  all  found  in  Chapter  16  of  his  treatise 
De Lapsis  ("On  those  who  fell  away  in  the  time  of  Persecu- 
tion").^ There  is  the  case  of  an  infant  who  had  been 
taken  by  her  nurse,  and  made  to  take  part  in  an  idol 
sacrifice,  and  was  later  brought  to  the  Church  by  her 
parents,  and  communicated  by  a  deacon  from  the  chaHce. 
"There  followed  a  sobbing  and  a  vomiting.  The  Eucha- 
»  P.  L.  i,  49&-501. 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  45 

rist  was  not  able  to  remain  in  a  body  and  mouth  that  had 
been  polluted.  The  draught  which  had  been  consecrated 
in  the  blood  of  the  Lord  made  its  way  from  a  mouth 
which  had  been  desecrated.  So  great  is  the  power  of  the 
Lord,  so  great  His  majesty."  Again,  a  grown  woman 
who  had  sacrificed  to  idols,  "introduced  herseK  secretly, 
while  we  were  sacrificing,"  Cyprian  says.  She  essayed 
to  make  her  Communion,  and  "found  not  food,  but  a 
sword,"  falling  into  convulsions  and  suffering  agonies  of 
pain.  A  man  who  had  thus  fallen  presented  himself  to 
receive  the  Lord's  body,  and  opening  his  hand  found 
there  only  a  cinder.  "Thus  it  was  shown  by  the  ex- 
ample of  one,  that  the  Lord  withdraws  when  He  is 
denied."  A  woman  went  to  open  the  box  in  which  she 
was  keeping  a  portion  of  the  reserved  Sacrament,  and 
fire  rising  from  within  the  box  frightened  her  away. 
Certainly,  Cyprian  held  that  the  consecrated  elements 
were  great,  mysterious,  and  full  of  awful  power. 

But  there  is  very  little  indication  in  Cyprian's  writings 
of  what  he  conceived  to  be  the  nature  of  that  sacramental 
power,  or,  in  other  words,  what  he  thought  those  great 
words,  "the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,"  to  mean.  Like 
his  master  Tertullian,  he  is  emphatic  in  identifying  the 
consecrated  bread  and  wine  with  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ.    Thus  he  says  (in  Epistle  62,  §4) :  ^ 

"Who  is" more  a  priest  of  the  Most  High  God  than  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  offered  sacrifice  to  God  the  Father,  and  offered 
that  same  which  Melchizedek  had  offered,  that  is,  bread  and 
wine,  namely,  His  own  body  and  blood.f*" 

It  will  be  observed  that,  so  far  from  holding  that  no 
bread  and  wine  remain  in  the  Christian  Eucharist,  S. 
Cyprian  says  that  our  Lord  offered  bread  and  wine  as 
1  P.  L.  4,  387. 


46         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

His  sacrifice.  If  He  only  appeared  to  offer  bread  and 
wine.  He  did  not  offer  "that  same  which  Melchizedek 
had  offered."  It  should  be  observed,  too,  that  the 
identification  of  the  earthly  part  with  our  Lord's  body  is 
very  direct,  —  "bread  and  wine,  namely.  His  own  body 
and  blood."  I  venture  to  claim  S.  Cyprian  as  one  of 
those  who  thought  of  the  Lord's  body  sacramental  as  at 
once  the  same  as,  and  yet  different  from,  the  body  natural 
in  glory.  It  may  be  recalled,  also,  that  when  he  was 
speaking  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  Heavenly  Part  of  the 
Sacrament,  as  I  quoted  him  above,  he  did  not  say,  "The 
body  of  the  Lord  is  withdrawn,"  but  "the  Lord  with- 
draws, when  He  is  denied."  Not  "the  Lord's  body," 
or  "the  Lord's  blood,"  but  "the  Lord  Himself"  is  the 
"Heavenly  Part"  of  the  Sacrament.  The  use  of  this 
particular  language  at  this  point  may  have  been  acci- 
dental. That  is  to  say,  a  modern  theologian  might  have 
viTitten  the  same  thing.  But  it  fits  in  very  exactly  with 
the  course  of  thought  which  I  have  been  ascribing  to  the 
primitive  Church. 

Also,  I  note  that  S.  Cyprian  does  not  speak  like  modern 
theologians  of  the  body  of  our  Lord  being  present  "m" 
the  eucharistie  bread.  Dr.  Pusey  claims  him  among 
patristic  authorities  for  that  sort  of  phrase,  which  Dr. 
Pusey  valued  as  opposing  the  opinion  of  Transubstantia- 
tion.  His  careful  scrutiny  could  find  but  ten  writers 
within  the  space  of  the  first  five  centuries,  to  whom  such 
language  could  be  ascribed.  The  examples  from  Ter- 
tuUian  do  not  seem  to  prove  his  point,  and  those  from 
Cyprian  are  confined  to  cases  where  the  martyr  speaks  of 
our  Lord's  ^^hlood"  and  speaks  of  it  as  being  "in  the 
cwp." 

Dr.  Pusey  claims  broadly  that  "'the  cup'  in  the  Fathers 
is  altogether  equivalent  to  the  element  of  'wine,'  so  that 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  47 

*the  cup'  stands  for  the  one  element  as  much  as  'the 
bread'  for  the  other."  Certainly,  "the  cup"  is  often  so 
used,  but  Dr.  Pusey's  own  quotations  from  S.  Cyprian 
show  that  this  point  must  not  be  pressed.  So  far  from 
"the  cup"  being  "altogether  equivalent  to  the  element 
of  wine,"  there  are  manifold  examples  where  "the  cup" 
must  mean  "the  chalice,"  quite  literally.  Thus,  in  a 
later  section  of  the  Letter  last  quoted  {Ep.  62,  §6),^  S. 
Cyprian  writes: 

"When  the  blood  of  grapes  is  mentioned,  what  else  is  shown 
than  the  wine  of  the  cup  of  the  blood  of  the  Lord.''" 

Certainly,  "the  wine  of  the  cup"  is  not  to  be  taken  as 
equivalent  to  "the  wine  of  the  wine."  When,  then,  S. 
Cyprian  goes  on  in  the  same  section  with  these  words,  — 

"Mention  is  therefore  made  of  wine  that  the  blood  of  the  Lord 
may  be  understood,  and  what  was  afterwards  manifested  in  the 
cup  of  the  Lord  might  be  foreshown  in  the  predictions  of  the 
prophets, " 

we  may  understand  "what  was  manifested  in  the  cup 
of  the  Lord"  to  mean  "what  was  manifested  in  the 
chalice."  ^ 

There  remains  one  more  passage  of  S.  Cyprian  which 
I  must  quote.  It  is  from  section  9  of  his  Letter  62,  and 
in  it  he  is  arguing  from  the  words  of  distribution: 

"Wherein  we  find  that  the  cup  which  the  Lord  oflfered  was 
mixed,  and  that  that  was  wine  which  He  called  His  blood. 

1  P.  L.  4,  389. 

*  The  phrase,  "  Mention  is  made  of  wine  that  the  blood  of  the  Lord 
may  be  understood"  suggests  Tertullian's  "In  bread  is  understood  His 
body,"  and  both  passages  suggest  that  somehow  the  use  of  these  words 
"body"  and  "blood"  in  connection  with  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  an  excep- 
tional use,  a  use  depending  upon  a  particular  understanding,  a  use  not 
according  to  men's  common  speech. 


48         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Whence  it  is  apparent  that  the  blood  of  Christ  b  not  offered,  if 
there  be  no  wine  in  the  cup. " 

This  is  another  example  of  the  use  of  "the  cup"  by  S. 
Cyprian  as  meaning  distinctly  "the  chalice."  I  offer  it 
chiefly  because  of  the  phrase,  —  "the  wine  which  He 
called  His  blood."  Roman  theology  demands  such  a 
phrase  as  "wine  which  He  turned  to  be  His  blood."  The 
Oxford  School  calls  for  "wine  in  which  He  made  His 
blood  to  dwell  as  within  a  veil."  Either  theology  can 
represent  our  Lord  as  calling  what  He  offers  us  in  the 
chalice  His  blood.  Neither  theology  really  calls  udne 
"our  Lord's  blood,"  nor  thinks  of  our  Lord  as  doing  so. 
S.  Cyprian  gazed  upon  the  consecrated  wine,  and  called 
that  element  "our  Lord's  blood,"  believing  that  he  was 
following  the  word  of  revelation  of  our  Lord  Himself. 

C.  North  Italy,  and  the  Testimony  of  S.  Ambrose 
and  the  Author  of  the  Book  De  Sacramentis 

I  return  to  Italy  again.  The  only  Roman  theologian 
of  note  who  appears  between  the  time  of  S.  Irenaeus  and 
the  end  of  the  fourth  century  is  S.  Hippolytus.  I  find 
nothing  of  his  that  throws  any  light  upon  our  present 
questions,  and  we  must  pass  directly  to  the  testimony 
of  S.  Ambrose,^  and  the  author  of  the  treatise  De  Sacra- 
mentis. 

In  approaching  this  testimony  I  take  leave  to  remind 
you  once  more  of  the  difference  which  I  seem  to  find 
between  the  eucharistic  pre-suppositions  of  the  Fathers 

*  A  great  Galilean  theologian  is  here  passed  over,  —  S.  Hilary,  Bp. 
of  Poictiers.  lie  refers  largely  and  eloquently  to  the  subject  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  but  I  find  nothing  in  his  language  which  might  not  be  used 
as  the  expression  of  any  high  view  of  the  Sacrament.  For  his  use  of 
"sub  Sacramento"  see  Note  A,  p.  233. 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  49 

and  those  of  modern  theologians.  The  modern  student 
cannot  see  the  phrase  "the  body  of  the  Lord"  without 
thinking  of  our  Lord's  glorified  body  in  heaven,  unless 
he  knows  that  the  mystical  body,  the  Church,  is  in  question. 
The  Fathers  understood  (so,  at  least,  I  am  maintaining) 
that  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  was  "the  body  of  our 
Lord"  in  some  special  sense,  even  as  the  Church  was 
"the  body  of  our  Lord,"  in  some  special  sense,  differen- 
tiated from  His  natural  body.  Hence  comes  this  deeply 
marked  difference,  that  the  modern  theologian  who  holds 
high  views  of  the  Sacrament  has  to  distinguish  between 
the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  and  the  body  of  the  Lord. 
The  bread  is  to  him  the  earthly  part,  and  the  body  of  our 
Lord  is  the  heavenly  part.  But  the  early  writers  identified 
the  bread  and  the  body.  They  held  that  the  bread,  the 
earthly  part  of  the  Sacrament,  receiving  the  add^ion  of 
the  heavenly  part,  became  thus  our  Lord's  body.  The 
modern  writer  explains  how  the  bread  may  be  called  "the 
body  of  our  Lord,"  but  has  to  acknowledge  that  it  cannot 
be  called  so  in  strictness  of  speech.  The  early  writers 
used  constantly  the  language  which  the  moderns  declare 
that  they  cannot  in  strictness  use,  and  they  never  use  the 
language  which  some  moderns  consider  strictly  accurate, 
at  all.  I  mean  that  no  ancient  writer,  so  far  as  I  am 
aware,  ever  speaks  of  our  Lord's  body  as  present  in  the 
bread.  I  shall  examine  the  instances  of  such  use  alleged 
by  Dr.  Pusey  in  a  supplemental  note  (see  p.  233).  The 
early  writers  absolutely  identify  "the  bread"  and  "the 
body  of  the  Lord,"  whereas  modern  theology  is  in 
the  habit  of  distinguishing  them. 


60         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 


S.  Ambrose,  of  Milan,  Abp.  (circa  a.d.  380) 

A  striking  example  of  this  identification  is  found  in 
these  words  of  S.  Ambrose : 

"So  often  as  we  receive  the  sacraments  which  by  the  mystery 
of  the  holy  prayer  are  transfigured  into  flesh  and  blood,  we  show 
forth  the  death  of  the  Lord."  ^ 

This  passage  is  alleged  by  Roman  theologians  to  show 
that  S.  Ambrose  held  the  theory  of  Transubstantiation. 
It  is  an  unfortunate  selection  for  that  purpose.  As  Dr. 
Pusey  points  out  (pp.  230,  231),  readers  of  S.  Ambrose 
found  this  word  transfigurari  in  their  Latin  version  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  where  it  was  used  of  the  "trans- 
figuration" of  our  Lord  (S.  Matt.  xvii.  2),  of  Satan's  being 
"transfigured  into  an  angel  of  light,"  of  the  ministers  of 
Satan  being  "transfigured  as  ministers  of  righteousness," 
of  false  Apostles  "transfiguring  themselves  into  Apostles 
of  Christ "  (2  Cor.  xi.  13-15).  In  every  one  of  these 
cases  the  thing  transfigured  remains  suhstantially  as  it  was 
before.  And  Dr.  Pusey  quotes  aptly  TertuUian's  argu- 
ment (in  the  De  Resurrectione  Carnis,  55)  ^  to  show  that 
the  changing  of  our  bodies  does  not  mean  the  loss  of  our 
bodies.  Tertullian  quotes  the  passage  "who  shall  trans- 
figure (so  he  read  in  Pliil.  iii.  21)  the  body  of  our  humilia- 
tion," and  goes  on  thus: 

"If  you  maintain  that  a  transfiguration  and  a  conversion 
amounts  to  the  annihilation  of  any  substance,  then  it  follows  that 
Saul,  when  'changed  into  another  man,' passed  away  from  his 
own  bodily  substance, and  that  Satan  himself,  when  'transfigured 
into  an  angel  of  light, '  loses  his  own  proper  character.     So  like- 

1  De  Fide  IV,  125;    P.  L.  16,  64.  »  P.  L.  2,  925. 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  51 

wise  changes,  conversions,  and  reformations  will  necessarily 
take  place  to  bring  about  the  resurrection,  but  the  substance  of 
the  flesh  will  be  preserved  safe. "  ^ 

No!  Certainly,  S.  Ambrose  does  not  imply  any  dis- 
appearance of  the  elements,  but  the  contrary.  In  view 
of  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  have  been  referred  to 
as  containing  this  word  "transfigured,"  I  suggest  that 
it  may  have  had  in  the  mind  of  S.  Ambrose  the  idea  of 
"putting  on  some  novel  glory."  It  might  be  a  real 
acquisition,  as  with  the  Transfiguration  of  our  Lord,  and 
as  with  the  resurrection  of  God's  people.  It  might  be  a 
false  assumption,  as  with  Satan  or  the  false  Apostles. 
In  the  case  which  S.  Ambrose  has  in  hand,  it  is,  of  course, 
a  real  glorification.  But  does  S.  Ambrose  mean  that  the 
elements  are  glorified  by  receiving  our  Lord's  body  and 
blood?  That  could  be  called  a  "transfiguring"  of  the 
elements,  I  am  sure.  But  S.  Ambrose  does  not  say  that 
thing.  He  says  that  the  elements  are  "transfigured  into 
flesh  and  blood."  They  receive  a  new  glory,  and  that 
glory  gives  them  this  new  character.  They  are,  not 
merely  contain,  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

Dr.  Pusey  quotes  from  S.  Ambrose  (De  Mysteriis, 
Chapter  9)  ^  a  passage  far  too  long  to  be  given  here. 
Chapter  8  had  closed  with  the  words,  —  "Light  is  better 
than  shadow,  truth  than  figure,  the  body  of  the  Author 
than  manna  from  heaven." 

*  It  should  be  acknowledged  that  Tertullian  has  another  passage 
{Adv.  Praxeam,  27)  in  which  he  says  just  the  opposite:  "Whatsoever  is 
transfigured  into  some  other  thing  ceases  to  be  that  which  it  had  been, 
and  begins  to  be  that  which  it  previously  was  not."  But  he  gives  no 
proof  for  this  judgment,  as  he  does  for  the  opposite  one. 

2  P.  L.  16,  409. 


52         TIIE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 
Then  Chafpter  9  begins  thus: 

"Perhaps  you  will  say,  'I  see  something  else;  how  is  it  that 
you  assert  that  I  receive  the  bo<Jy  of  Christ? '  .  .  .  Let  us  prove 
that  this  is  not  wliat  nature  made,  but  what  the  blessing  con- 
secrated, and  the  power  of  blessing  is  greater  than  that  of  nature, 
because  by  blessing  nature  itself  is  changed." 

He  proceeds  to  give  exami)lcs  of  the  power  of  God  to 
change  natures:  Moses'  rod  changed  to  a  serpent,  the 
rivers  of  Egypt  turned  to  blood,  the  Red  Sea  parting, 
Jordan  driven  back,  the  iron  made  to  swim  at  tlie  prayer 
of  Elislia.  It  will  be  observed  that  in  most  of  these  cases 
the  old  nature  remains,  and  the  miracle  is  a  miracle  of 
added  qualities  or  powers.  But  all  these  were  miracles 
wrought  by  prophets,  by  mere  men.  The  miracle  of  the 
altar  is  wrought  by  the  word  of  One  who  is  God. 

"If  the  word  of  Ehjah  had  such  power  as  to  bring  down  fire 
from  heaven,  shall  not  the  word  of  Clirist  have  power  to  change 
the  nature  (species)  of  the  elements.'*  You  have  read  concerning 
the  making  of  the  whole  world,  'He  spake,  and  tliey  were  made: 
He  commanded,  and  they  were  created. '  Shall  not  the  word  of 
Christ,  which  was  able  to  make  out  of  nothing  that  which 
(formerly)  was  not,  be  able  to  change  things  which  already  are 
into  that  which  they  were  not.'*  For  giving  a  new  nature  to 
things  is  not  an  inferior  accomphshment  to  changing  them." 

"To  change  the  nature  of  the  elements,"  "change 
things  which  already  are  into  that  w^hich  they  were  not." 
The  Roman  tcacliing  docs  not  fit  with  S.  Ambrose,  for 
his  "transfiguring"  leaves  the  elements  still  in  existence. 
The  teaching  of  the  Oxford  School  does  not  fit  with  S. 
Ambrose,  for  it  acknowledges  no  change  in  the  nature  of 
the  elements  themselves,  whereby  they  become  in  some 
sense  our  Lord's  body  and  blood,  but  claims  that  the 
elements  are  called  our  Lord's  body  and  blood  to  show 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  53 

that  our  Lord's  body  and  blood  are  really  there  without 
change  in  the  elements.  But  let  us  go  on  with  the  words 
of  S.  Ambrose: 

"But  why  use  arguments?  Let  us  use  the  examples  that  He 
gives,  and  prove  the  truth  of  the  Mystery  by  the  example  of  the 
Incarnation.  Did  the  course  of  nature  proceed  as  usual,  when 
the  Lord  Jesus  was  born  of  Mary?  If  we  look  to  the  usual  course, 
a  woman  ordinarily  conceives  when  she  has  had  intercourse 
with  a  man.  And  this  body  which  we  make  is  that  which  was 
born  of  the  Virgin.  Why  do  you  seek  the  order  of  nature  in  the 
body  of  Christ,  seeing  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Himself  was  born  of 
a  virgin,  not  according  to  nature?  It  was  the  true  flesh  of 
Christ  which  was  crucified  and  buried;  in  truth,  then,  stands  the 
sacrament  of  His  flesh.  The  Lord  Jesus  Himself  proclaims, 
'This  is  My  body.'  Before  the  blessing  of  the  heavenly  words 
another  nature  is  spoken  of;  after  the  consecration  the  body  is 
signified.  He  Himself  speaks  of  His  blood.  Before  the  conse- 
cration it  has  another  name;  after  it  is  called  blood.  And  you 
say,  'Amen,'  that  is,  'It  is  true.'  What  the  mouth  utters,  let 
the  heart  within  confess.  What  the  voice  speaks,  let  the  soul 
feel." 

I  must  comment  briefly  on  three  of  these  phrases. 
First,  there  is  that  strange-sounding  clause,  "In  truth, 
then,  stands  the  sacrament  of  His  flesh."  I  take  it  that 
those  words  are  meant  to  signify  that  "the  sacrament  of 
our  Lord's  flesh,"  the  bread  consecrated  to  be  His  body, 
belongs  to  the  domain  of  reality.  Our  Lord's  natural 
flesh  is  real,  not  phantasmal;  the  sacrament  of  His  flesh, 
the  bread  called  His  body,  has  a  real  rigfet  to  the  name. 
Next,  I  note  that  S.  Ambrose  distinctly  says  that  "the 
body  which  we  make,"  in  the  act  of  consecration,  "is 
that  which  was  born  of  the  Virgin."  I  accept  that 
saying  ex  animo.  I  hold  that  our  Lord  so  takes  to  Him- 
self for  a  body  the  bread  of  our  Eucharist  that  it  becomes 


64         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

an  extension  of  His  body  natural,  a  part  of  that  body 
natural,  and  so  one  with  it,  that  we  may  truly  say  just 
such  a  thing  as  this,  —  "The  body  of  the  Eucharist,  the 
consecrated  bread,  is  the  body  which  was  born  in  Bethle- 
hem." I  claim  that  the  words  of  S.  Ambrose  are  patient 
of  such  an  interpretation.  The  subject  of  the  identity 
of  the  eucharistic  body  and  the  body  in  heaven  will  come 
up  again,  to  be  dealt  with  more  fully.  Meanwhile,  I  ask 
attention  to  still  another  phrase,  —  "  the  sacrament  of 
His  flesh,"  I  seem  to  find  S.  Ambrose  using  that  form 
of  words  to  point  to  the  bread  as  being  our  Lord's  "flesh" 
in  a  sacramental  sense,  as  distinguished  from  the  flesh 
in  the  natural  sense.  And  this  notion  I  find  confirmed  a 
moment  later  by  that  phrase  used  of  the  wine,  —  "It  is 
called  blood."  "The  body  is  signified"  is  ambiguous. 
It  might  mean,  either  "the  bread  is  in  a  sense  our  Lord's 
body,"  or  "the  body  of  the  Lord  is  shown  to  be  present 
in  the  bread."  But  "it  is  called  blood"  refers  plainly  to 
the  wine.  I  feel  sure  that  according  to  the  theology  of 
S.  Ambrose  the  earthly  element  deserved  that  name. 

VI 

The  Author  of  the  Book,  De  Sacrameniis ;    North 
Italy  (before  a.d.  400) 

We  turn  to  the  Treatise,  De  Sacrameniis.  The  author 
is  unknown,  but  it  has  been  made  out  clearly  that  he  was 
a  bishop  in  North  Italy,  perhaps  a  pupil,  certainly  an 
admirer  and  imitator,  of  S.  Ambrose,  and  of  but  little 
later  date.  He  is  really  another  witness  as  to  the  kind 
of  teaching  that  S.  Ambrose  used  to  give.  I  take  some 
passages  from  his  Fourth  Book,  Cap.  iv.  Sections  14-23.* 

»  P.  L.  16,  439-144. 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  55 

"14.  You  say,  perhaps,  'My  bread  is  common  bread.'  But 
that  bread  is  bread  before  the  words  of  the  sacraments;  when 
the  consecration  has  taken  place,  from  being  bread  it  becomes 
the  flesh  of  Christ.  Let  us  then  declare  this.  How  can  that 
which  is  bread  be  the  body  of  Christ.?    By  consecration. " 

"How  can  that  which  is  bread  be  the  body  of  Christ?" 
Our  author  here  has  a  chance  to  explain  that  it  is  not 
really  so,  but  is  called  so  because  the  body  of  Christ  is 
there  behind  its  veil.  But  he  does  not  say  that.  He  does 
not  think  it.  He  holds  that  this  very  bread  has  by  the 
consecration  become  a  greater  thing.  For  hear  how  he 
goes  on  in  Section  15: 

"If  then  there  is  such  power  in  the  word  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
that  those  things  which  were  not  should  begin  to  be,  how  much 
more  does  it  bring  to  pass  that  those  things  which  were  should 
still  be,  and  should  also  be  changed  into  something  else.  .  .  . 
Before  consecration  it  was  not  the  body  of  Christ;  but  after 
consecration,  I  tell  you  that  now  it  is  the  body  of  Christ.  '  He 
spake,  and  it  was  made :  He  commanded,  and  it  was  created. ' 

You  were  yourself,  but  you  were  an  old  creature;  after  you 
were  consecrated,  you  began  to  be  a  new  creature.  Do  you  wish 
to  know  how  a  new  creature .f*  'Every  one,'  says  the  Scripture, 
'  in  Christ  is  a  new  creature. ' " 

You  see  how  distinctly  it  is  the  doctrine  of  this  author, 
as  of  his  master,  S.  Ambrose,  that  the  elements  continue 
in  being,  and  that  they  are  also  changed  so  as  to  be  some- 
thing else.  And  he  hints,  at  least,  at  the  nature  of  the 
change.  He  tells  the  Christian  enquirer,  who  is  asking 
"How  can  these  things  be?"  to  consider  his  own  case. 
Once  he  was  an  old  creature,  and  lost;  now  since  his 
Baptism,  his  "consecration,"  he  is  a  new  creature,  and 
saved.  What  has  made  the  difference?  Of  course,  the 
pupil  will  bethink  himself  that  it  is  the  indwelhng  life  of 


56         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Christ  the  Saviour,  given  liini  in  his  Baptism,  that  makes 
him  a  new  creature.  That  indwelHng  of  our  Lord's  hfe 
is  what  changes  a  man  into  a  Christian.  Our  author 
seems  to  have  had  a  similar  thought  as  to  the  mystery 
of  the  change  of  our  bread  and  wine  into  the  body  and 
blood  of  our  Lord.  Yet  the  same  author  who  is  sure 
that  the  elements  are  in  some  sense  our  Lord's  body  and 
blood  will  also  freely  speak  of  them  as  figures,  or  like- 
nesses, of  our  Lord's  (natural)  body  and  blood.  In 
Section  20  he  speaks  thus: 

"But  haply  thou  say  est,  I  do  not  see  the  form  (speciem) 
of  blood !  No !  but  it  hath  a  likeness.  For  as  thou  hast  received 
a  Hkeness  of  death,^  so  also  thou  drinkest  a  likeness  of  the 
precious  blood,  that  there  may  be  no  horror  at  gore,  and  that 
none  the  less  the  price  of  redemption  may  accomplish  its  work. 
You  have  learnt,  then,  that  what  you  receive  is  the  body  of 
Christ." 

In  Chapter  21  occurs  a  quotation  from  the  Liturgy  in 
use  in  Northern  Italy  in  the  author's  time: 

"Wouldest  thou  know  that  it  is  consecrated  by  heavenly 
words?  Hear  what  the  words  arc.  The  priest  says,  'Make  this 
oblation  for  us  avaiUng,  vahd,  reasonable,  acceptable,  because  it 
is  the  figure  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.' " 

Our  writer  speaks  of  the  Eucharist  as  consecrated  "by 
the  words"  given  above.  It  is  only  fair  to  add  that  he 
is  quoted  as  holding  the  idea  that  consecration  was 
effected  by  the  recital  of  our  Lord's  words,  "This  is  My 
body,"  "This  is  My  blood."  "When  the  words  of 
Christ  have  operated,"  he  says,  "there  is  made  the  blood 

*  The  reference  is  to  Romans  vi.  5,  —  "If  we  were  united  with  Him 
in  the  likeness  of  Ilis  death,"  —  and  it  is  interesting  to  see  how  our 
author  looks  again  to  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  for  an  analogy  to  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist. 


THE  EPHESINE-ROMAN  TRADITION  57 

of  Christ"  (Chapter  23).  But  in  view  of  the  distinct 
statement  of  the  writer  that  the  consecration  is  effected 
by  the  words  of  the  Liturgy,  given  above,  it  seems  to  be 
worthy  of  enquiry  whether  his  phrase,  "When  the  words  of 
Christ  have  operated,"  may  not  be  meant,  as  S.  Chrysos- 
tom's  great  phrase  about  our  Lord's  Voice  re-ordering  the 
elements  seems  to  have  been  meant,  to  refer  to  an  abiding 
efficacy  of  our  Lord's  words  spoken  in  the  upper  room. 
The  phrase  of  S.  Chrysostom  is  examined  in  Note  G, 
p.  258. 

I  must  call  attention  briefly  to  the  phrase  of  S.  Ambrose, 
"This  body  which  we  make"  (p.  53),  and  to  the  phrase 
of  his  follower,  "There  is  made  the  blood  of  Christ."  We 
shall  find  similar  language  used  by  S.  Jerome  in  the  next 
generation.  I  submit  that  according  to  this  doctrine 
the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  is  a  body  that  can 
be  made.  His  body  in  heaven  is  a  body  which  cannot 
be  made  by  man. 

Dr.  Pusey,  on  page  285  of  his  monumental  book,  makes 
the  strange  mistake  of  translating  the  words  "ibi  sanguis 
Christi  efficitur,"  "the  blood  of  Christ  is  made  to  be 
there."  This  would  certainly  require  efficitur  ut  ibi  sit. 
The  same  passage  is  rightly  rendered  on  Dr.  Pusey's 
page  106. 


LECTURE  III 

THE  USE  OF  FIGURATIVE  LANGUAGE  IN  HOLY 
SCRIPTURE,  AND  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE 
ALEXANDRLVN    SCHOOL 

IF  there  is  any  one  thing  that  is  more  shocking,  more 
utterly  repellent,  than  another,  to  most  students  who 
have  been  accustomed  to  take  high  views  of  the  Eucharistic 
Mystery,  it  is  the  suggestion  that  our  Lord's  words,"  This 
is  My  body,"  "This  is  My  blood,"  are  to  be  taken  figura- 
tively. To  say,  "Oh!  That  is  a  figurative  expression!" 
is  the  common  refuge  of  shallow  theologians  when  they 
meet  with  a  mysterious  saying  which  offers  them  more 
than  they  are  ready  to  receive.  Alas!  They  show  by 
their  language,  and  by  their  behaviour,  that  "a  figura- 
tive expression"  is  to  them  an  expression  that  means  very 
little,  or  nothing  at  all.  I  have  put  forth  a  suggestion 
that  the  writers  of  the  primitive  Church  were  in  the 
habit  of  taking  our  Lord's  great  words  above  recited 
as  figurative.  I  expose  my  study  to  such  a  bitterness  of 
prejudice  by  that  acknowledgment  that  I  am  bound  to 
take  time  for  some  observations  on  the  use  of  figurative 
language  in  Divine  Revelation. 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  it.  Figurative  language  occurs 
not  only  in  the  meditations  of  saints,  as  in  Psalm  Ixxxiv., 
"The  Lord  God  is  a  sun  and  a  shield,"  where  it  certainly 
means  much,  and  not  little,  but  also  in  the  communication 
of  new  truths  to  the  people  of  God.  "In  the  beginning 
was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the 

6S 


THE  USE  OF  FIGURATIVE  LANGUAGE  59 

Word  was  God"  (S.  John  i.  1).  Certainly,  that  great 
title  of  "the  Word"  for  the  Second  Person  of  the  Blessed 
Trinity  is  a  figurative  expression.  Certainly,  also,  it 
means  a  great  deal,  and  we  are  expected  to  study  it 
reverently,  and,  with  the  help  of  God,  draw  out  the 
meaning.  "This  is  My  beloved  Son"  (S.  Matt.  xvii.  5) 
is  a  figurative  expression.  It  confirms  from  heaven  what 
S.  Peter  had  been  saying,  a  few  days  before,  "Thou  art 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God"  (S.  Matt.  xvi.  16). 
In  that  confession  of  S.  Peter  there  are  two  figurative 
expressions,  Christ,  which  stands  for  "Anointed,"  and 
Son.  None  of  us  could  be  guilty  of  the  folly  of  supposing 
that  these  expressions,  as  being  figurative,  were  of  small 
significance.  Word  and  Christ  and  Son!  These  words 
carry  tremendous  meaning,  every  one  of  them.  One 
may  say  that  our  Lord  was  really  "the  Son  of  God," 
and  was  really  "the  Lord's  Anointed,"  —  "anointed  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power."  Surely.  But  it 
remains  that  that  "Sonship"  is  figurative,  not  literal, 
and  that  "anointing"  is  figurative,  not  literal.  Our 
deep  sense  that  these  figurative  expressions  used  in  regard 
to  our  Lord  stand  for  realities,  and  magnificent  realities, 
must  not  make  us  forget  the  fact  that  God  tells  us  these 
great  things  by  the  method  of  parable.  Here,  then,  is 
my  first  point  about  the  figurative  language  of  Holy 
Scripture.  God,  seeking  to  convey  to  us  such  an  idea 
as  we  can  receive  of  the  greatest  facts,  the  most  funda- 
mental realities,  of  the  universe,  does  habitually  use  the 
language  of  figure. 

But  I  must  go  farther.  God  has  made  His  material 
world  full  of  pictures  —  of  parables,  so  to  speak,  —  of 
spiritual  facts.  The  Divine  mind  loves  to  contemplate 
such  pictures,  and  dwell  upon  them,  and  to  use  them  in 
bringing  material  beings  to  a  vision  of  spiritual  truths. 


60         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

And  more  than  that,  God  teaches  His  people  to  look 
through  the  picture  to  the  spiritual  reality  which  the 
picture  somehow  represents,  and  find  the  spiritual  reaUty 
greater,  and  more  splendidly  real,  than  the  earthly  counter- 
part. Bread  is  a  natural  figure  for  anything  which 
supplies  nourishment  to  the  world.  It  is  a  picture 
therefore,  of  our  Lord  supplying  nourishment  for  the 
whole  world.  But  the  fact  of  our  Lord  as  the  nourish- 
ment of  a  needy  world  is  so  much  greater  than  the  fact 
of  our  earthly  bread  as  the  nourishment  of  a  needy  world, 
that  our  Lord  speaks  of  Himself  as  "the  true  [the  genuine^ 
bread  out  of  heaven"  (S.  John  vi.  32),  the  only  "bread" 
that  is  really  worthy  of  the  name.  And  so  our  Lord 
describes  Himself  as  "the  true  [the  gemiinc}  vine," 
(S.  John  XV.  1).  "Vine"  is  a  figurative  title  for  Him, 
but  He  fulfils  the  idea  which  the  vine  was  put  into  the 
world  to  represent,  more  fully  and  finely  and  nobly  than 
any  natural  vine  that  God  ever  made.  Not  only,  then, 
is  the  use  of  figurative  language  for  the  expression  of  the 
greatest  spiritual  realities  one  of  the  habits  of  the  INIind 
of  God,  but  when  God  does  that  thing.  His  spiritual  fact 
is  more  real,  not  less,  than  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
words  which  He  borrows  out  of  our  halting  speech. 

If,  then,  I  ascribe  to  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  a  habit 
of  regarding  as  figurative  our  Lord's  words  about  giving 
Ilis  body  and  His  blood  in  the  Eucharist,  I  do  not  for 
a  moment  mean  to  charge  the  Fathers  with  represent- 
ing those  consecrated  elements  as  mere  pictures  —  dis- 
tant, ineffective,  unreal  pictures  —  of  heavenly  powers. 
Plainly,  they  thought  those  elements  to  have  become 
inexpressibly  great.  They  did  not  think  that  the  broken 
bread  was  a  mere  picture  of  our  Lord's  broken  body, 
nor  the  j)ourcd  wine  a  mere  picture  of  our  Lord's  shed 
blood.     ISIy   brethren   who   folhnv  the   teachings  of  the 


THE  USE  OF  FIGURATIVE  LANGUAGE  61 

Oxford  School  do  make  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine 
to  be  the  merest  figures.  They  hold  that  Heavenly 
Realities  are  present  there,  under  the  veils  of  bread  and 
wine,  but  they  hold  the  bread,  and  wine  themselves  to  be 
but  pictures,  mere  "  figures  of  the  true."  ^  The  Fathers 
of  old  time,  if  I  miderstand  them,  took  our  Lord's  words 
in  another  way.  "Words  in  His  language,"  they  might 
have  said,  "mean  always  more  than  the  corresponding 
words  in  our  language.  If  He  says  that  our  eucharistic 
bread  is  His  body,  then  it  is  something  greater  than  even 
His  natural  body  of  flesh  and  bones.  If  He  says  that 
the  wine  of  our  Eucharist  is  His  blood,  then  He  means 
something  greater  than  even  the  blood  that  was  in  His 
veins  on  that  night  in  the  upper  room.  Through  the 
body  of  His  flesh  He  touched  the  world  in  which  He  lived 
with  blessing,  but  when  He  takes  the  bread  of  the  Eucha- 
rist for  a  body.  He  touches  a  vaster  world  than  that  little 
world  of  Galilee  and  Judea,  and  wheresoever  He  touches, 
He  blesses.  He  heals  the  diseased.  He  makes  the  blind 
see  and  the  deaf  hear,  He  raises  the  dead  to  newness  of 
life.  Greater  than  even  the  body  of  His  flesh  is  the  body 
of  our  Lord's  bread."  To  call  our  Lord's  language 
"figurative"  in  such  a  meaning  is  not  to  make  its  meaning 
poor  and  small. 

^  Theologians  of  the  Oxford  School  are  scornful  of  the  idea  that  our 
Lord's  words  can  be  taken  figuratively.  They  regard  themselves  as 
absolute  literalists,  because  they  take  the  word  "This"  as  referring 
to  the  Heavenly  Reality,  and  not  to  the  earthly  element  at  all.  Grant 
them  such  a  reference  of  the  word  "This"  in  our  Lord's  words  of  dis- 
ti'ibution,  and  they  are  literalists  as  regards  the  word  "body"  and  the 
word  "blood."  But  when  they  have  to  explain  the  language  of  the 
Fathers,  who  say  unhesitatingly  that  the  bread  is  our  Lord's  body,  they 
resort  at  once  to  an  explanation  of  that  language,  which  is  figurative  in 
the  lowest  order  of  figurative  speech.  S.  Augustine's  much-quoted 
phrase  about  Sacraments  having  "a  likeness  to  those  things  of  which 
they  are  Sacraments"  will  be  considered  in  Lecture  V,  p.  134. 


62         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

My  particular  reason  for  bringing  in  this  subject  of 
figurative  language  just  here  is  that  the  great  theological 
school  of  Alexandria  maintained  for  several  generations 
a  tradition  of  particular  sympathy  with  our  Lord's  mind 
on  that  side  of  its  working.  Those  who  love  figures  of 
speech  and  find  it  natural  to  use  them  in  their  own  teach- 
ing can  find,  I  am  sure,  more  readily  than  the  born  liter- 
alist,  the  real  meaning  which  the  great  users  of  figurative 
language  intended  by  their  language  to  convey.  Are 
there  scholars  who  are  still  under  the  delusion  that  what 
is  really  meant  by  a  figurative  expression  is  any  less  real 
than  what  is  meant  by  a  literal  expression,  as  if  our 
Lord,  the  True  Vine,  the  Genuine  Vine,^  was  less  real  as  a 
vine  than  some  common  vine  that  bears  grapes  in  a 
vineyard?  Then  for  the  benefit  of  such  it  may  be  worth 
while  to  observe  that  in  the  Arian  Controversy  the 
figure-loving,  mystical  school  of  Alexandria  was  a  pillar 
of  orthodoxy,  as  against  the  contentions  of  the  more 
literal-minded  school  of  Antioch,  which  was  always  a 
fruitful  mother  of  heresies.  Arius,  who  was  entirely  a 
son  of  Antioch,  though  he  came  to  Alexandria  to  take 
charge  of  a  wealthy  and  worldly  congregation,  and  found 
a  field  to  preach  his  heresy  there,  pressed  upon  men  what 
he  called  the  necessary  consequences  of  the  word  "Son," 
just  as  in  the  last  thousand  years  a  long  line  of  well- 
meaning  theologians  have  been  pressing  what  they  thought 
to  be  the  necessary  consequences  of  our  Lord's  words 

*  Our  Lord's  word  &\r]di.v6s  seems  to  be  used  to  mean  that  that  to 
which  a  certain  title  is  now  applied  is  more  truly  worthy  of  the  title 
than  anything  else  to  which  the  title  is  applied.  "I  am  the  True  Vine" 
might  well  be  rendered,  "I  am  the  Rail  Vine."  So  far  is  the  figurative 
from  having  in  it  any  element  of  the  unreal  in  the  language  of  Him  who 
is  the  Truth.  For  the  use  of  iXriOiPos  compare  Trench's  Synonyms 
of  the  N.  r.,  pp.  25-29. 


THE  USE  OF  FIGURATIVE  LANGUAGE  63 

about  His  body  and  blood.  Arius  insisted,  for  example, 
that  a  "son"  could  not  be  as  old  as  his  father.  He 
declared  that  it  was  impossible  —  if  he  had  been  writing 
as  an  English  theologian  for  to-day,  he  would  doubtless 
have  said  that  it  was  not  merely  supra  naturam,  but 
contra  naturam,  and  therefore  utterly  incredible  —  that 
a  "son"  should  receive  the  whole  substance  of  His  father. 
Arius  foamed  at  the  mouth  because  the  "orthodox," 
like  Athanasius,  reduced  (as  he  thought)  words  of  Divine 
Revelation  to  empty  figures,  and  evacuated  them  of  their 
natural  meaning.  But  we  can  see  now  that  Athanasius 
was  right.  Aj-ius,  taking  words  of  God  in  what  seemed 
to  him  a  more  real  sense,  was  simply  contending  for  a 
reality  that  was  not  there.  Athanasius,  so  unjustly 
charged  with  weakening  certain  great  words  of  God,  and 
depriving  them  of  something  of  their  natural  suggestion, 
was  really  holding  to  the  sense  of  God  in  those  same 
words,  and  to  what  had  always  been  the  supernatural 
intention  of  them.  If  God  uses  words  figuratively,  you 
will  make  no  gain  of  reality  by  taking  them  literally. 
And  God  does  love  the  figurative  use  of  words. 


S.  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  Doctor  of  Theology 
(a.d.   190-203) 

I  pass  to  the  examination  of  the  language  used  by 
Alexandrian  writers  concerning  the  Eucharistic  Mystery, 
and  the  first  that  comes  before  us  is  the  presbyter  Clement, 
long  the  head  of  the  great  catechetical  school  of  that  city. 
His  language  is  highly  figurative,  and  sometimes  very 
obscure,  but  I  think  that  he  makes  some  points  quite 
clear.  One  is  that  he  held  the  phrase,  "the  blood  of  our 
Lord,"  to  have  two  meanings,  one  natural,  one  sacra- 


64         THE  EUCIIARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

mental.  My  quotation  begins  near  the  beginning  of 
Book  II,  Chapter  2,  of  the  Paedagogus  (Potter's  Edition, 
p.  177).i 

"Two  fold,"  he  says,  "is  the  blood  of  the  Lord.  The  one  is 
His  natural  blood,  by  which  we  have  been  saved  from  destruc- 
tion, the  other  spiritual,^  i.  e.,  wherewith  we  are  anointed.  To 
drink  the  blood  of  Jesus  is  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  immortahty." 

I  should  say  that  plainly  his  thought  was  that  the 
wine  of  our  Eucharist  is  called  "the  blood  of  our  Lord" 
figuratively,  because  it  is  made  to  be  the  vehicle  of  His 
immortal  life,  which  is  communicated  to  us  thereby. 

"But  the  Spirit  is  the  strength  of  the  Word,  as  blood  of  flesh. 
As  the  wine  is  mixed  with  water,  so  is  the  Spirit  with  the  man. 
And  the  one,  the  mixture,  nourishes  to  faith,  and  the  other,  the 
Spirit,  guides  to  immortahty.  And  the  mingling  of  both,  of  the 
drink  and  the  Word,  is  called  Eucharist,  a  grace  renowned  and 
glorious,  and  those  who  partake  of  it  in  faith  are  sanctified  in  both 
body  and  soul,  the  will  of  the  Father  mingling  together  mystically 
the  divine  mixture,  man,  with  the  Spirit  and  the  Word.^     For 

1  P.  G.  8,  409. 

2  It  is  necessary  to  urge  upon  modem  re<aders  that  to  S.  Clement  and 
the  men  of  his  day  the  word  "spiritual"  had  no  such  connotation  of 
"immaterial"  as  the  word  has  tmfortunately  had  thrust  upon  it  in 
modern  times.  That  most  unhappy  mistake  by  wliich  S.  Paul  was 
made  to  appear  to  English  readers  as  setting  a  "spiritual"  body  over 
against  a  "natural"  body,  where  the  latter  should  have  been  called  a 
"psychic"  body,  a  phrase  which  nobody  would  have  understood,  and 
nobo<ly  could  have  been  deluded  into  thinking  that  he  understood,  while 
he  was  getting  the  idea  all  wrong,  —  that  pitiful  mistake  in  translation, 
I  say,  has  worked  havoc  in  the  modern  mind,  giving  to  the  word  "spirit- 
ual" the  senses  of  "non-material,"  and  (alas!)  " un-real."  To  S. 
Clement  an  earthly  element  of  a  sacrament  was  a  "spiritual"  thing,  and 
a  txemendous  reality. 

'  Several  translations  of  this  sentence  read  "by  the  Spirit  and  the 
Word."    The  Greek  case  (the  Dative)  will  not  admit  the  idea  of  Per- 


THE    ALEXANDRIAN   SCHOOL  65 

in  truth  the  Spirit  is  joined  to  the  soul  that  is  moved  by  it,  and 
the  flesh,  for  the  sake  of  which  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  to  the 
Word." 

I  seem  to  find  here,  not  the  thought  that  the  joining  of 
our  Lord's  natural  flesh  and  blood  to  the  eucharistic 
elements  makes  the  Sacrament,  but  rather  the  thought 
that  the  joining  of  the  Spirit  and  the  Word  to  bread  and 
wine  makes  that  bread  and  wine  to  be  a  body  and  blood 
of  our  Lord.  The  same  thought  comes  out  near  the  end 
of  the  same  chapter  (Potter's  Clement,  p.  186),^  where  he 
says, 

"He  blessed  wine,  saying,  'Take,  drink;  this  is  my  blood,' 
[when  it  was]  blood  of  the  grape.  For  in  a  figure  He  sets  forth 
(dXX777opel)  the  Word  which  '  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission 
of  sins',  as  a  holy  stream  of  gladness. " 

Dr.  Pusey  advances  this  passage  to  show  that  S.  Clement 
held  that  the  wine  was  still  wine  after  the  Consecration. 
It  stands  good  for  that  purpose,  but  it  stands  good  also 
to  show  that  Clement  thought  that  it  was  wine  which 
our  Lord  meant  when  He  said,  "This  is  My  blood,"  — 
wine,  and  not  the  natural  blood  of  His  own  veins.  A 
like  saying  is  found  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Book  I  of  the 
Paedagogus  (the  pages  in  Potter's  edition  are  123,   124) :  ^ 

"The  Holy  Ghost  makes  of  flesh  a  parable  (dWriyopet)  for 
us,  for  by  Him  hath  the  flesh  been  created.  Blood  figures 
(otfiTrerat)  for  US  the  Word,  for  as  rich  blood  the  Word  hath 
been  poured  into  our  life." 

Returning  to  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  (II.  2)  which 
I  have  quoted  earlier,  we  have  this  strange-sounding 
phrase : 

sonal  Agency.  It  must  be  translated  "by  means  of"  (as  of  a  mere 
instrumentality)  or  "with."  The  sentence  following  shows  that  "with" 
was  S.  Clement's  thought. 

»  P.  G.  8,  428.  2  P.  G.  8,  301. 


CG         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

"The  mystic  symbol  of  the  holy  blood  the  Scripture  hath  called 
wine." 

Again  we  have  a  given  element  called  "the  blood"  of 
our  Lord  and  a  "mystic  symbol"  of  His  blood.  The 
explanation  offered  by  S.  Clement  is,  "The  blood  of  the 
Lord  is  two  fold."  The  wine  of  our  Eucharist  is  made 
to  be  a  sacramental,  or  as  S.  Clement  likes  to  say,  a 
"spiritual,"  blood;  it  is  a  symbol  of  our  Lord's  natural 
blood. 

II 

Theodotus,  Heretic  (last  part  of  second  century) 

I  follow  Dr.  Pusey  in  adding  here  a  quotation  from  a 
heretical  writer,  Theodotus,  who  was  a  contemporary  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria.  His  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist 
would  seem  to  have  been  just  that  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
This  passage  is  noteworthy  as  bringing  together,  as  if 
they  were  quite  analogous,  three  sacramental  consecra- 
tions, —  that  of  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist,  that  of  the 
oil  of  Confirmation,  and  that  of  the  water  of  Baptism. 

"And  the  bread  and  the  oil  are  sanctified  by  the  power  of 
the  Name,  not  being,  as  they  appear,  the  same  as  they  were 
taken,  but  by  power  they  are  changed  into  a  spiritual  power.  In 
like  manner,  the  water,  too,  both  that  which  is  exorcised,  and 
that  which  becometh  Baptism,  not  only  contains  what  is  inferior, 
but  also  acquires  sanctifying."^ 

*  The  passage  is  in  the  Patrologia  Graeca  9,  col.  696.  The  Greek 
phrase  is  r6  Mujp  Kal  t6  i^opKi^ofitvov  Kal  t6  ^dimafjia  yiv6titvov 
cannot  be  translated  rightly,  "The  water  which  is  exorcized  and 
becometh  Baptism."  Theodotus,  using  koI  ,  .  .  Kal,  plainly  dis- 
tinguishes two  waters,  a  lustral  holy  water,  and  the  water  of  Baptism. 
Cf.  article  Holy  Water  in  Diciiorary  of  Christian  Antiquities.  The 
water  of  exorcism  may  have  been  at  that  time  a  Gnostic  peculiarity. 
It  is  not  mentioned  so  early  by  any  Catholic  writer. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN    SCHOOL  67 

I  venture  to  remark  that  all  the  early  writers  thought 
thus  of  sacramental  elements  as  changed  into  spiritual 
powers.  According  to  most  modern  theories  the  elements 
of  bread  and  wine  are  not  themselves  spiritual  powers 
at  all.  They  only  provide  a  spiritual  power  with  a  local 
habitation  which  it  does  not  locally  inhabit. 

Ill 

Origen,  Greatest  Teacher  of  the  Third  Century 
(a.d.  203-253) 
We  pass  to  the  testimony  of  that  very  great  man, 
Origen.  Just  because  he  was  a  great  man,  he  often  had 
thoughts  hard  for  common  men  to  understand,  but  he 
was  a  devoted,  and  most  devout,  student,  a  deeply  loyal 
son  of  the  Church  in  every  purpose  of  his  heart,  and  a 
man  who  drew  out  an  almost  unbounded  admiration  and 
personal  devotion  from  men  (some  of  them  really  great 
men  in  their  time)  who  were  his  personal  pupils.  He 
was  the  object  of  severe  criticism,  and  of  some  ecclesiastical 
condemnations,  but  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  no  one  ever 
faulted  him  as  misrepresenting  the  Church's  doctrine  of 
the  Eucharist.  How  does  he  represent  that  doctrine? 
To  him,  as  to  S.  Clement,  the  eucharistic  body  of  our 
Lord  is  a  "typical  and  symbolical  body."  The  passage 
from  which  I  take  these  words  is  a  long  one  occurring  in 
his  Commentary  on  S.  Matthew,  Tom.  xi.  n.  14.  Origen 
is  commenting  on  the  words,  "Not  that  which  entereth 
into  the  mouth  deJBleth  the  man"  (S.  Matt.  xv.  11),  and 
he  has  laid  down  a  general  principle  that  no  holy  thing 
can,  of  itself,  without  a  holy  action  of  the  man's  own 
soul,  hallow  a  man,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  no  foul 
thing  can,  of  itself,  without  some  unholy  action  of  the 
man's  own  soul,  defile  a  man.  He  presently  illustrates 
by  the  Holy  Eucharist. 


68         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

"That  which  is  sanctified  by  the  Word  of  God  and  by  prayer 
doth  not  of  itself  sanctify  tlie  receiver;  for  if  so,  it  would  sanctify 
even  liim  who  eateth  unworthily  the  bread  of  the  Lord,  and  no  one 
would  through  that  food  become  weak  and  sickly,  or  sleep.  .  .  . 
And  in  this  bread  of  the  Lord  there  is  profit  to  the  receiver,  when 
with  mind  undefiled  and  conscience  pure  he  receiveth  that 
bread.  And  so  neither  by  not  eating,  simply  from  the  not  eating 
of  the  bread  which  is  sanctified  by  the  Word  of  God  and  by 
prayer,  do  we  lose  any  good,  nor  by  eating  do  we  gain  any  good; 
for  the  cause  of  our  loss  is  our  wickedness  and  deeds  of  sin,  and 
the  cause  of  our  gain  is  our  righteousness  and  deeds  of  upright- 
ness; for  this  is  what  is  meant  by  Paul  in  the  words,  'neither  if 
we  eat  are  we  the  better,  neither  if  we  eat  not  are  we  the  worse. ' 
And  if  'whatsoever  entereth  in  at  the  mouth  goeth  into  the  belly, 
and  is  cast  out  into  the  draught,'  and  the  food  which  is  con- 
secrated by  the  Word  of  God  and  by  prayer,  so  far  as  regards  the 
material  part,  goes  into  the  belly,  and  is  cast  out  into  the  draught, 
but  so  far  as  regards  the  prayer  which  cometh  upon  it,  according 
to  the  proportion  of  the  faith,  becomes  beneficial,  and  the  cause 
of  the  mind's  perception,  as  it  looks  to  that  which  is  beneficial, 
then  not  the  matter  of  the  bread,  but  the  word  spoken  over  it,  is 
that  which  bcnefiteth  him  w'ho  eateth  it,  not  unworthily  of  the 
Lord.  And  this  may  be  said  of  the  tj-pical  and  symbolical 
body."i 

"The  cause  of  our  gain  is  our  righteousness  and  up- 
rightness." That  is  startling  doctrine!  But  I  think 
that  what  Origen  means  is  true.  He  was  no  Pelagian, 
to  make  us  men  our  own  saviours;  but  he  perceives  that 
nothing  from  outside  ourselves  can  save  us,  unless  we 
truly  give  ourselves  to  be  saved.  But  it  is,  of  course, 
with  his  eucharistic  doctrine  that  we  have  our  chief  con- 
cern, and  this  has  in  it  something  to  give  us  furiously 
to  think,  as  our  French  neighbors  have  a  way  of  saying. 

»  Origenw  Opera.  Edition  of  De  La  Rue,  III.  500;  P.  G.  13,  coll.  948, 
949.  952. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   SCHOOL  69 

For  he  makes  it  clear  that  he  thinks  of  the  food  of  the 
Eucharist  as  subject  to  all  the  laws  of  human  food,  laws 
of  digestion  and  excretion.  He  knows  of  no  "material" 
element  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  which  is  not  subject  to 
those  laws.  Surely,  our  Lord's  body  in  heaven,  and  His 
blood,  if  He  has  blood  in  heaven,  which  I  suppose  that 
He  has  not,  are  "material"  substances,  and  even  if  they 
are  present  in  the  Eucharist  after  a  spiritual  manner, 
should  be  carefully  excepted  when  one  is  speaking  about 
the  material  part,  and  saying  something  which  is  not 
true  of  them  at  all.  No!  Plainly,  Origen  thought  of  no 
material  part  in  the  Eucharist  except  the  bread  and 
wine,  and  when  he  adds,  "This  is  true  of  the  typical  and 
symbolical  body,"  he  leaves  no  room  for  us  to  say  that 
he  is  distinguishing  between  this  typical  body,  the  bread, 
and  a  more  real  body.  If  it  be  objected  that  Origen 
may  have  held  that  our  Lord's  body  in  heaven  was  not 
now  a  material  body,  I  will  simply  say,  "Then  grant  me 
at  least  that  Origen's  idea  of  a  'typical  and  symbolical' 
body  was  of  a  body  of  bread  which  could  be  eaten  and 
digested.  He  does  not  think  of  a  symbolical  body  as 
being  the  identical  body  which  it  symbolizes." 

For  further  illustration  of  Origen's  habit  of  thinking  of 
the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  as  being,  rather  than  con- 
taining, our  Lord's  body,  let  me  quote  two  passages: 

"We,  giving  thanks  to  the  Creator  of  the  universe,  eat  the 
bread  offered  with  thanksgiving  Uvxapiarias)  and  prayer  over 
the  things  offered,  which  bread  becometh  a  body  passing  holy,^ 

^  Dr.  Pusey  and  Dr.  Darwell  Stone  both  translate  auna  ayiov  ti, 
"a  certain  holy  body,"  or  "a  kind  of  holy  body,"  which  would  be  a 
version  very  welcome  to  me,  but  I  am  bound  to  point  out  that  rt  follow- 
ing an  adjective  qualifies  the  adjective,  and  not  the  noun,  and  (as  in  our 
dialect  phrases,  "some  strong,"  "some  talkative,"  "some  good-looking") 
means  that  the  quality  denoted  by  the  adjective  belongs  to  the  subject 


70         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

wliich  halloweth  those  who  use  the  same  with  a  sound 
purpose."  ^ 

"Ye,  who  are  wont  to  be  present  at  the  Divine  Mysteries, 
know  how,  when  ye  receive  the  body  of  the  Lord,  ye  keep  it  with 
all  care  and  veneration,  lest  any  particle  of  it  fall,  lest  any  of 
the  consecrated  gift  escape  you."* 

It  will,  of  course,  be  said  by  some  that  Origen  was 
thinking  of  a  greater  and  heavenly  Thing,  present,  invisi- 
ble, in  a  visible  sacrament.  But  strictly  there  can  be  no 
such  thing  as  a  "particle"  of  the  "heavenly  body"  of  the 
Oxford  School.  Origen  was  plainly  calling  bread  "the 
body  of  the  Lord."  I  add  further  passages  which  seem 
to  me  to  make  it  clear  that  Origen  found  in  the  elements 
a  sacramental  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,  rather  than 
His  natural  body.  In  one  of  them  Origen  distinguishes 
the  blood  of  the  flesh  from  the  blood  of  the  Word,  and 
in  the  other  he  calls  the  body  of  our  Lord,  which  is  offered 
us  in  the  Sacrament,  His  eucharistic  body. 

"But  thou,  who  hast  come  to  Christ,  the  true  High  Priest, 
who  by  His  own  blood  hath  made  God  propitious  to  thee,  and 
reconciled  thee  to  the  Father,  stop  not  at  the  blood  of  the  flesh, 
but  learn  rather  the  blcxxl  of  the  Word,  and  hear  Himself  saying 
to  thee,  'This  is  My  blood,  which  is  shetl  for  you  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.'  He  who  is  imbued  with  the  Mysteries  knoweth 
the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  'Word  of  God.'"' 

"Therefore  further  on  in  the  Psalm,  hinting  at  the  mystical 
food,  as  it  seems.  He  said,  'Taste,  and  see  that  the  Lord  is  good.' 
Perchance  exhorting  to  taste  Christ  Himself,  he  hinted  by  these 

in  an  indefinite,  that  is  an  unmeasured,  an  immeasurable,  way.  "A 
certain  holy  body"  would  require  auna  ri  &yiop.  See  further  in  Note  F, 
p.  256. 

»  Contra  Cclvim,  8,  33;    T.  G.  11,  156.5. 

2  In  Kxodum.  Horn.  xiii.  3;    P.  G.  \i,  .SOI, 

»  In  Lcvil..  Horn.  ix.  10;    P.  G.  li.  523. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN    SCHOOL  71 

words  at  His  body,  whereof  there  was  a  symbol  in  the  Law,  the 
eucharistic  body  of  Christ  succeeding  the  shew-bread."  ^ 

A  greater  symbol,  the  eucharistic  body,  succeeding  a 
lesser  symbol,  the  shew-bread,  seems  to  be  the  connection 
of  thought. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  Origen  has  a  passage  in  which 
he  says  expressly  that  our  Lord  did  not  call  bread  His 
body,  and  did  not  call  wine  His  blood.  That  would  not 
be  quite  accurate.  Origen  says,  "Not  that  visible  bread 
.  .  .  did  He  call  His  body,  but  the  Word,  in  the  Mystery 
of  which  that  bread  was  to  be  broken;  nor  did  He  call 
that  visible  drink  His  blood,  but  the  Word,  in  whose 
Mystery  that  drink  was  to  be  poured  out."  It  is  a  fairly 
familiar  figure  of  rhetoric.  We  say  that  a  man  did  not 
do  one  thing,  but  another,  where  every  one  knows  that 
he  did  both,  meaning  that  the  second  was  vastly  more 
important  than  the  first.  To  say  that  a  man  did  not  do 
one  thing,  but  another,  in  that  particular  sort  of  rhetorical 
figure,  is  an  express  indication  that  the  writer  regards 
the  man  as  having  really  done  that  former  thing.  Keble's 
lines  will  be  remembered: 

"Oh!  come  to  our  Communion-feast, 
Where  present  in  the  heart, 
Not  in  the  hands,  the  eternal  Priest 
Doth  His  true  Self  impart." 

Literal-minded  people  persuaded  the  poet  in  later  life 
to  change  "Not  in  the  hands"  to  "As  in  the  hands." 
There  was  not  the  slightest  change  in  the  poet's  thought. 
So  it  was  with  Origen.  The  whole  object  of  the  Sacra- 
ment, he  would  say,  is  to  make  men  partakers  of  God 
the  eternal  Word.     In  the  ultimate  meaning  He  is  Him- 

1  Sel.  in  Psalm.  Ed.  De  La  Rue,  Tom.  ii,  p.  520;  P.  G.  12,  1068, 
1069. 


72         THE  EUCILVRISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

self  the  Food  of  His  people.  You  must  learn  to  look 
through  the  Sacrament  and  beyond  the  Sacrament  to 
the  Lord  Himself.  In  such  a  spirit  Origen  writes  what 
Dr.  Pusey  calls  "a  passage  of  great  diflBculty": 

"That  bread  which  God  the  Word  confesses  to  be  His  own 
body  is  the  word  that  nourishes  souls.  It  is  the  word  pro- 
ceeding from  God  the  Word.  It  is  bread  from  the  heavenly 
Bread,  which  is  placed  upon  that  table  of  wliich  it  is  written, 
'Thou  hast  prepared  a  table  before  me  against  them  that  trouble 
me.'  And  that  drink  which  God  the  Word  confesses  to  be  His 
blood  is  the  Word  that  gives  drink  and  excellent  gladness  to 
[literally,  "bedeweth  and  inebriateth"]  the  hearts  of  those  who 
drink,  which  Word  is  in  that  cup  of  wliich  it  is  written,  'And 
Thy  gladdening  cup,  how  excellent  it  is.'  And  that  drink  is 
that  fruit  of  the  True  Vine,  which  says,  'I  am  the  True  Vine.' 
And  it  is  the  blood  [the  secret  of  the  hfe]  of  that  Grape  which, 
cast  into  the  wine-press  of  the  Passion,  brought  forth  this 
drink.  So  also  the  bread  [that  wliich  really  sustauis  hfe]  is  the 
Word  of  Christ,  made  of  that  Seed-corn  which,  faUing  into  the 
ground,  yields  much  fruit.  For  not  that  visible  bread  which 
He  held  in  His  hands  did  the  Word  call  His  body,  but  the  Word 
in  the  mystery  of  wliich  that  bread  was  to  be  broken.  Nor  did 
He  call  that  visible  drink  His  blow!,  but  the  Word  in  the  mys- 
tery of  which  that  drink  was  to  be  poured  out.  For  what  else 
can  the  body  of  God  the  Word,  or  His  blood,  be  but  the  word 
which  nourishes,  and  the  word  wliich  gladdens  the  heart?" 

I  interrupt  my  quotation  here  to  say  that  I  take  Origen's 
meaning  in  these  last  words  to  be  something  like  this: 
Any  incarnation  of  God  must  be  an  allegory.  The  body  of 
God  must  be  an  allegory  of  His  desire  to  touch  the  world. 
The  blood  of  God  must  be  an  allegory  of  His  desire  to 
animate  the  world.  The  "body  of  the  Lord"  and  the 
"blood  of  the  Lord"  mean  in  the  highest  view  His  means 
of  doing  these  two  things,  His  whole  power  to  express 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN    SCHOOL  73 

Himself  and  to  communicate  Himself.  And  Origen  sums 
up  all  our  Lord's  power  to  express  Himself  and  His 
means  of  expressing  Himself  in  this  one  description, 
*'the  ward."  He  goes  the  whole  length  of  saying  in  one 
of  his  Homilies  on  Numbers,  that  we  "drink  the  blood  of 
Christ,  not  only  in  the  way  of  Sacraments,  but  when  we 
receive  His  words,  in  which  He  consists"  {In  Num.  Horn. 
vii.  5).^  And  yet  to  make  him  say  that  what  he  would 
call  the  lower  meaning  of  the  sacramental  words  was  not 
literally  true,  would  be  to  make  him  contradict  himself 
quite  hopelessly.  Origen  believed  in  a  great  sacramental 
grace  that  belonged  to  the  bread  and  the  cup  of  the 
Eucharist,  and  in  his  next  following  words,  which  seem 
to  me  to  be  very  important,  he  further  plainly  distinguishes 
the  one  grace  from  the  other. 

"Why  then  did  he  not  say,  'This  is  the  bread  of  the  new 
covenant.'  Because  the  bread  is  the  word  of  righteousness, 
by  eating  which  souls  are  nourished,  while  the  drink  is  the  word 
of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  according  to  the  mystery  of  His 
birth  and  passion.  Since,  therefore,  the  covenant  of  God  is  set 
for  us  in  the  blood  and  passion  of  Christ,  so  that,  beheving  the 
Son  of  God  to  have  been  born,  and  to  have  suffered  according 
to  the  flesh,  we  may  not  in  [mere]  righteousness  be  saved,  in 
which  alone,  without  faith  in  the  passion  of  Christ,  there  could 
be  no  salvation,  for  this  reason  it  was  said  of  the  cup  only,  'This 
is  the  cup  of  the  new  covenant.'"  ^ 

All  this  is  mystical  in  the  highest  degree.  It  seems 
quite  plain  that  Origen  accepted  with  all  his  heart  the 
common  teaching  of  the  Church  as  to  the  greatness  of  the 
sacramental  elements,  and  that  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist 

1  P.  G.  12,  701. 

2  In  Matt.  Tractate  35,  §  85.  Ed.  De  La  Rue  T.  iii.  897;  P.  G.  13, 
754,  755. 


74         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

was  verily  Christ's  body,  and  the  wine  His  blood.  Then 
he  embroidered  upon  these  simpler  truths  soaring  mysti- 
cisms, in  which  also  he  preached  great  truths.  My  own 
point  is  that  when  he  puts  aside  the  lower  truth  to  make 
room  for  the  higher,  the  thing  which  he  thus  puts  aside, 
and  in  putting  thus  aside,  shows  to  be  the  accepted 
doctrine  of  the  Church,  taught  to  all  beginners  in  Christian 
doctrine,  is  just  what  I  have  been  saying,  —  The  bread 
is,  not  contains,  our  Lord's  body,  and  the  wine  is,  not 
contains.  His  blood.  When  Origen  is  urging  Christians 
to  rise  from  the  Sacrament  to  our  Lord  Himself,  it  is  not 
from  His  glorified  body  to  His  yet  more  glorious  Person, 
that  Origen  calls  their  thoughts,  but  from  the  bread  and 
wine  to  the  Word,  expressing  Himself  in  all  manner  of 
"words."  When  he  calls  men  to  lift  up  the  eyes  of  their 
faith  above  the  bread  and  wine  to  what  they  stand  for, 
it  is  not  to  our  Lord's  glorified  body  in  heaven  that  he 
calls  them,  but  straight  to  the  Heavenly  Word  in  His 
own  Person.  He  simply  has  nothing  to  say  of  the  glorified 
body  of  our  Lord  at  all.  I  am  sure  that  Origen  would 
have  said,  with  other  Fathers  of  the  Church,  that  the 
eucharistic  body  of  our  Lord  was  one  with  our  Lord's 
body  in  heaven.  He  might  well  have  said  that  it  was  the 
same  with  that  body,  if  it  had  come  in  his  way  to  say  so. 
But  that  body  does  not  come  before  him  in  his  mystical 
flights. 

IV 

S.  DiONTSIUS  THE  GrEAT,  HeAD  OF  THE  CATECHETICAL 

School,   a.d.   232,   Archbishop    of  Alexandria, 
A.D.  247 

From  Origen's  great  successor  in  the  Catechetical 
School,  S.  Dionysius,  Dr.  Pusey  quotes  several  passages 
in  his  Catena,  but  I  find  nothing  in  them  that  bears  upon 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   SCHOOL  75 

the  particular  points  which  I  am  investigating,  except 
that  in  a  letter  to  a  bishop,  Basilides,  he  speaks  of  coming 
to  the  Holy  Communion  as  touching  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ.  That  certainly  looks  as  if  he  thought  of  the 
elements  themselves  as  being  really  our  Lord's  body  and 
blood.  I  ought  to  add  that  in  his  "letter  to  Paul  of 
Samosata,"  *  if  it  be  genuine,  Dionysius  uses  this  language, 
"in  order  that  we,  the  faithful,  may  be  able  to  contain 
Him,  and  to  become  the  abode  of  God,  receiving  Him 
whole."  But  there  is  nothing  to  show,  or  to  hint,  that 
"receiving  God  whole"  had  for  S.  Dionysius  the  connota- 
tion of  the  modern  theological  idea  of  the  presence  of 
"the  whole  Christ,  body,  blood,  soul,  and  Divinity  in 
every  particle  of  the  bread,  and  in  every  drop  of  the 
wine." 


S.  Athanasius,  Archbishop  of  Alexandria, 
A.D.  327-373 

We  pass  to  that  very  great  man,  Athanasius.  One  of 
his  most  striking  expressions  is  preserved  to  us  (from  a 
sermon  addressed  to  the  newly  baptized)  in  a  sermon  of 
Eutychius,  a  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  in  the  sixth 
century:  ^ 

"So  long  as  the  supplications  and  prayers  are  not  yet  made, 
bare  is  the  bread  and  the  cup.  But  when  the  great  and  mar- 
vellous prayers  are  completed,  the  bread  becomes  the  body, 
and  the  wine  the  blood,  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

^  We  are  told  expressly  by  the  Council  of  Antioch  referred  to  in 
Eusebius,  H.  E.  vii.  30,  that  Dionysius  wrote  a  letter  to  the  council,  but 
would  not  consent  to  write  to  such  a  one  as  Paul.  But  this  Epistle 
may  after  all  be  that  of  Dionysius,  with  a  false  heading,  "to  Paul  of 
Samosata,"  instead  of  "concerning  Paul  of  Samosata." 

^  The  passages  may  be  found  in  Patrol.  Graeca,  26,  col.  1325. 


76         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

I  ask  you  to  note  (as  against  the  Roman  theory)  that 
he  does  not  say  that  before  the  consecration  the  elements 
are  bread  and  wine,  but  that  afterward  they  are  not 
bread  and  wine.  He  says  that  at  first  they  are  "mere," 
or  "bare,"  bread  and  wine,  and  thus  he  imphes  that 
afterward  they  are  bread  and  wine  with  an  additional 
character.  He  does  not  say  that  the  added  fact  is  our 
Lord's  body.  He  says  rather  that  the  elements  them- 
selves (with  this  additional  fact,  which  he  does  not  define) 
are  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.  Further  on  in  the 
sermon,  he  gives  the  same  testimony  still  more  tellingly : 

"  Let  us  come  to  the  consecration  of  the  mysteries.  This  bread 
and  this  cup,  so  long  as  the  prayers  and  supplications  are  not 
yet  said,  are  bare  things  (lAiXA).  But  when  the  great  prayers 
and  the  holy  suppHcations  are  sent  up  to  God,  the  Word  descends 
upon  the  bread  and  the  cup,  and  His  body  is  produced  "  {yiverai). 

I  venture  to  claim  that  S.  Athanasius  clearly  regarded 
the  miracle  of  the  Altar  as  a  close  parallel  with  the  miracle 
of  the  Incarnation.  He  represents  the  Word  as  descend- 
ing upon  the  bread  and  wine  of  our  Eucharist  and  making 
for  HimseK  a  body,  even  as  he  descended  into  the  womb 
of  the  blessed  Virgin,  and  made  for  Himself  a  body. 
"This  is  a  doctrine  of  'Impanation,' "  I.  imagine  that 
some  of  my  friends  will  be  saying.  If  it  is  the  doctrine 
of  all  the  Fathers,  I  need  not  mind  its  being  called  by  a 
nick-name;  but  I  may  remark  that  "Impanation"  is  a 
very  late  theological  word,  and  stands  for  a  doctrine 
that  our  Lord's  natural  body  is  locally  included  in  the 
bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucharist.  I  certainly  do  not 
find  any  such  teaching  in  the  writings  of  the  early  Church, 
nor  commend  any  such.  The  analogy  of  the  miracle  of 
the  Incarnation  and  the  miracle  of  the  Eucharist  will 
come  up  for  fuller  consideration  in  my  Seventh  Lecture. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   SCHOOL  77 

i 
I  simply  point  out  now  that  it  was  not  a  new  thought  of 
the  writers  of  the  fifth  century. 

Meanwhile  I  must  for  honesty  exhibit  the  kind  of 
language  used  by  S.  Athanasius,  which  would  be  most 
likely  to  be  appealed  to  as  conveying  the  idea  of  some 
modern  theologians.  Thus  in  the  fourth  of  his  Festal 
Letters,  that  which  announced  the  date  of  Easter  for 
A.D.  332,  he  uses  these  words: 

"Our  Saviour,  also,  since  He  was  changing  the  typical  for  the 
spiritual,  promised  them  that  they  should  no  longer  eat  the 
flesh  of  a  lamb,  but  His  own,  saying,  'Take,  eat  and  drink,  this 
is  My  body  and  My  blood.' "  ^ 

"Not  the  flesh  of  a  lamb,  but  His  own."  If  you  start 
with  the  assumption  that  our  Lord  has  not,  and  cannot 
have,  any  other  body  than  His  natural  body,  as  most 
modern  theologians  do,  you  must  acknowledge  that  this 
points  to  our  Lord's  natural  body.  But  surely,  if  our 
Lord  makes  bread  to  be  His  body.  His  flesh,  in  some 
new  sense,  that  flesh  is  "His  own."  I  add  that  if  we 
take  our  Lord's  natural  body  to  be  meant,  we  must  make 
a  considerable  explanation  as  to  its  presence  "after  the 
manner  of  spirit"  in  the  sacramental  elements,  or  under 
their  veils,  which  the  Fathers  never  do  make.  They  do 
not  seem  to  have  taught  anything  which  to  their  minds 
required  such  explanation. 

As  an  example  of  what  Athanasius  does  have  to  say 
when  the  matter  of  "spiritual"  interpretation  comes 
directly  in  his  way,  I  give  a  passage  from  the  fourth  of 
his  Dogmatic  Letters  to  Serapion  {Ey.  ad  Serapion.  iv. 
19),  in  which  he  has  been  considering  the  words,  "It  is 
the  spirit  that  quickeneth;    the  flesh  profiteth  nothing." 

1  P.  G.  26,  1379. 


78         THE  EUCIL\RISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

"Here  also  He  has  used  Ixifli  terms  about  Himself,  namely 
flesh  and  spirit.  And  He  distinguished  the  spirit  from  what 
relates  to  the  flesh,  in  order  that  they  might  beUeve  not  only 
in  what  was  visible  in  Him,  but  also  in  what  was  invisible,  and 
might  thereby  learn  that  what  He  says  is  not  fleshly,  but  spirit- 
ual. How  many  would  the  body  be  sufficient  for,  for  eating, 
that  it  should  become  the  food  of  the  whole  world?  But  for  this 
reason  He  made  mention  of  the  ascension  of  the  Son  of  Man  into 
heaven,  in  order  that  He  might  draw  them  away  from  the  bodily 
notion,  and  that  from  henceforth  they  might  learn  that  the 
aforesaid  flesh  was  heavenly  eating  from  above,  and  spiritual 
food  given  by  Him.  For  He  says,  'What  I  have  spoken  unto 
you  is  spirit  and  life,'  as  much  as  to  say,  'That  which  is  mani- 
fested and  is  given  for  the  life  of  the  world  is  the  flesh  which 
I  wear.  But  tliis  and  its  blood  shall  be  given  to  you  by  Me 
spiritually  as  food,  so  that  this  may  be  imparted  spiritually  to 
each  one,  and  may  become  to  all  a  preservative  for  resurrection 
to  eternal  Hfe.'  "  ^ 

I  note  with  particular  interest  the  suggestion  that  our 
Lord  wanted  to  call  attention  from  what  was  visible  in 
Him  to  what  was  invisible,  and  his  enquiry  as  to  how 
much  our  Lord's  body  could  do  towards  feeding  a  whole 
world,  as  showing  that  he  really  thought  the  heavenly 
reality  in  the  Eucharist  to  be  our  Lord's  life,  rather  than 
our  Lord's  body.  Certainly,  when  Athanasius  represents 
our  Lord  as  speaking  of  "the  flesh  that  I  wear,"  he  is 
thinking  of  our  Lord's  natural  body.  When,  then, 
Athanasius  goes  on  to  present  our  Lord  as  saying,  "This, 
and  its  blood,  shall  be  given  to  you  spiritually  as  food," 
many  will  understand  him  as  meaning  precisely  what  I 
have  just  now  declared  that  the  Fathers  never  say.  I 
grant  that  the  language  can  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  the 
Oxford  School  without  the  least  forcing.  But  I  claim 
that  it  is  entirely  patient  of  the  other  interpretation,  too, 
1  P.  0.  26,  665-667. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   SCHOOL  79 

—  "This,  my  natural  body,  shall  be  given  to  you  spirit- 
ually through  its  extension  which  is  My  sacramental  body." 
I  venture  to  think  also  that  the  latter  interpretation 
accords  better  with  the  earlier  part  of  this  same  passage, 
and  with  the  other  passages  which  I  have  set  before  you. 

VI 

Serapion,  Bishop  of  Thmuis,  Contemporary 
OF  S.  Athanasius 

Bishop  Serapion  has  left  a  Book  of  Prayers,  which  has 
of  late  years  been  restored  to  the  Church's  study.  In  it 
we  find  a  eucharistic  Anaphora  containing  this  Invoca- 
tion: 

"O  God  of  truth,  let  Thy  Holy  Word  come  upon  this  bread, 
that  the  bread  may  become  the  body  of  the  Word,  and  upon  this 
cup,  that  the  cup  may  become  the  blood  of  the  Truth." 

Does  Serapion  think  of  the  body  of  the  Eucharist  as 
our  Lord's  natural  body,  coming  from  heaven  in  a  heavenly 
manner,  to  us  unknown?  or  as  a  special,  sacramental 
body,  of  a  new  order  .'*  The  fact  that  he  calls  the  bread 
a  "likeness"  of  our  Lord's  body  natural  seems  to  me  to 
point  to  the  latter  conclusion.     These  are  the  words  used: 

"To  Thee  we  have  oflfered  this  bread,  the  likeness  of  the  body 
of  the  Only -begotten.  This  bread  is  the  likeness  of  the  holy 
body,  because  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the  night  in  which  He  was 
betrayed  took  bread,  and  brake,  and  gave  it  to  His  disciples, 
saying,  'Take,  and  eat,  this  is  My  body,  which  is  being  broken 
for  you  for  the  remission  of  sins. '  Wherefore  we  also,  making 
the  Ukeness  of  the  death,  have  offered  the  bread.  .  .  .  We  have 
ofiPered  also  the  cup,  the  likeness  of  the  blood,  because  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  taking  a  cup  after  supper,  said  to  His  own  dis- 
ciples, 'Take,  drink,  this  is  the  new  covenant,  which  is  My  blood 
which  is  being  poured  out  for  you  for  the  remission  of  trespasses.' 


80         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Wherefore  we  also  have  oflFered  the  cup,  presenting  a  likeness  of 
the  blood." 

Dr.  Darwell  Stone  remarks  that  this  use  of  the  word 
"Hkeness"  (to  duolcofxa)  occurs  only  before  the  Invoca- 
tion. Quite  true,  but  it  occurs  after  the  solemn  recital 
of  our  Lord's  words,  "This  is  My  body,"  "This  is  My 
blood."  Theologians  who  hold  that  these  are  words  of 
Consecration  are  estopped  from  suggesting  that  this 
word  of  "likeness"  is  said  of  unconsecrated  elements. 
Or  is  it  meant  by  Dr.  Stone  that  Serapion  himself  regarded 
the  consecration  as  effected  by  the  Invocation,  and  so 
used  language  which  he  would  not  have  used,  if  he  had 
not  thus  erred?  But  even  supposing  that  Serapion  used 
the  word  "likeness"  of  elements  which  he  regarded  as 
still  unconsecrated,  which  I  fully  believe  to  be  the  case, 
it  is  noteworthy  that  he  gives  our  Lord's  words,  "This  is 
My  body,"  as  his  own  reason  for  calling  this  bread  a 
likeness  of  our  Lord's  body. 

It  remains  to  quote  a  still  earlier  passage  from  the 
same  Anaphora: 

"O  Lord  of  Hosts,  fill  also  this  sacrifice  with  Thy  power  and 
with  Thy  participation;  for  to  Thee  have  we  offered  this  living 
sacrifice,  this  bloodless  offering." 

I  venture  to  assert  that  that,  so  common,  patristic 
plirase,  "the  bloodless  sacrifice,"  which  we  are  now 
beginning  to  meet,  carries  in  it  at  least  a  suggestion  that 
those  who  used  it  thought  that  the  word  "blood"  was 
used  in  a  figurative  sense  in  our  Lord's  revelation  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  a  natural  phrase 
to  have  grown  up  in  the  minds  of  men  who  believed  that 
blood  was  offered  in  their  sacrifice,  no  matter  how  much 
they  may  have  thought  of  it  as  blood  raised  into  a  new 
and  higher  order  of  being. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   SCHOOL  81 

VII 

S.  DiDTMus,  Head  of  the  Catechetical  School, 
Second  Half  of  the  Foubth  Century 

Our  next  witness  shall  be  another  head  of  the  Catecheti- 
cal School,  Didymus,  blind  from  childhood,  so  that  he 
never  learned  to  read,  who  yet  became  a  noted  teacher, 
numbering  among  his  pupils  Jerome,  and  Jerome's  some- 
time friend,  and  later  adversary,  Rufinus.  Jerome  used 
to  speak  of  him  as  "my  seer,"  because  he,  blind,  saw  so 
much  more  than  common  men.  In  a  commentary  on 
Psalm  xl.  7  (in  the  LXX  version,  which  gives  "A  body 
hast  Thou  prepared  for  me,"  while  our  English  Versions 
number  the  verse  differently,  and  give  "Mine  ears  hast 
Thou  opened")  he  writes: 

"Having  abolished  all  Jewish  sacrifices,  .  .  .  He  brings  in, 
in  place  therof ,  the  bloodless  and  reasonable  sacrifice  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  the  Lord,  in  the  new  song  of  the  new  covenant,  of 
which  (body  and  blood)  He  said,  'Whoso  eateth  My  flesh  and 
drinketh  My  blood  hath  eternal  life.'  Wherefore  He  said, 
'Sacrifice  and  offering  Thou  wouldst  not;  but  a  body  Thou  hast 
prepared  for  Me.'  But  Christ  Himself  prepared  for  the  Church 
a  body,  which  is  the  Lord's.  And  that  He  did  not  vaguely, 
but  at  the  time  of  the  mystical  supper,  when  He  said,  'Take, 
and  eat.'  This  body,  then,  He  prepared  for  our  participation." 
(Quoted  in  Pusey,  p.  442).^ 

'  The  original  is  to  be  found  in  the  Expositio  Patrum  Graecorum 
in  Psalmos  of  Corderius,  748. 

I  feel  that  I  must  add  here  the  Greek  of  one  sentence,  with  a  translation 
of  my  own.     For  S.  Didymus  wrote  this: 

KarriprlaaTO  au/xa  rij  iKKXijaiq.,  Sr]\ad^,  t6  KvpiaKof  Kirhs  6  XpiffToi, 
oix  air^w,  dXXd  oiiry  Kotpy  kt\.  .  .  .  Tore  rolvw  KaT-qpruraTo  rb 
ff CO/JO  irpos  nerLXrfipLV. 

"  A  body  did  Christ  Himself  prepare  for  the  Church,  that  is  to  say, 
that  body  which  represents  the  Lord,  not  without  plan,  but  on  the 


82         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

I  understand  S.  Didymus  to  say  that  our  sacrifice  is 
"without  (Hteral)  blood."  That  would  be  my  inter- 
pretation of  his  "bloodless  sacrifice."  He  also  says  that 
our  Lord  prepared  for  His  Church  a  body,  which  was 
His  own  body,  and  yet  a  body  newly  prepared,  at  the 
time  of  the  Institution  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  He  seems 
to  distinguish  the  body  thus  and  then  prepared  from  the 
natural  body  of  our  Lord,  prepared  thirty-four  years 
earlier. 

VIII 

S.  Theophelus,  Archbishop  of  Alexandria 
(circa  a.d.  400) 

Two  more  Alexandrians  shall  be  quoted,  bringing  us 
to  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  S.  Theophilus  is  last 
in  order,  having  been  Archbishop  from  a.d.  385  to  a.d. 
412.  But  I  quote  him  first,  because  he  has  but  a  single 
word  to  say,  and  a  slight  one. 

The  Festal  Letter  of  Theophilus  for  a.d.  402  is  preserved 
for  us  in  a  Latin  translation  by  S.  Jerome,  in  his  Letter 
XCVIII.,^  and  in  it  the  Pope  of  Alexandria  speaks  of 

"the  bread  of  the  Lord,  by  which  the  body  of  the  Saviour  is 
shown." 

As  usual  with  the  Fathers,  it  is  the  outward  element 
which  is  spoken  of  as  "the  bread  of  the  Lord,"  and  it  is 
not  said,  "in  which  the  body  of  the  Saviour  is  present," 
or  "in  which  the  body  of  the  Saviour  is  hidden,"  but 
"by  which  the  body  of  the  Saviour  is  shown,'"     I  take  the 

very  occasion  etc.  ...  At  that  time,  then,  did  He  prepare  the  body 
for  participation. ' '     I  may  not  have  hit  upon  the  right  phrase  to  show 
what  S.  Didymus  meant  by  r6  KvpioKdv;    but  certainly  it  is  not  the 
same  as  t6  Kvplov. 
»  P.  L.  i.  801. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   SCHOOL  83 

phrase  as  meaning,  "in  which  you  see  that  which  our 
Lord  has  taken  to  be  His  body  sacramental."  I  do  not 
think  that  it  can  be  said  without  somewhat  severely 
straining  language,  that  by  the  element  of  bread  in  the 
Eucharist  our  Lord's  natural  body  is  "shown."  That  is 
just  what,  according  to  certain  modern  theologies,  it  is 
not.  It  is  there,  but  it  is  hidden.  S.  Theophilus  seems  to 
have  been  thinking  on  different  lines. 


IX 

S.  Macarius,  Monk,  (a.d.  801-391) 

I  turn  to  S.  Macarius,  who  lived  for  sixty  years  in  the 
wilderness,  and  came  to  be  an  object  of  almost  boundless 
admiration  among  the  orthodox. 

In  his  Homily  27  he  has  this  language,  —  "that  in 
the  Church  bread  and  wine  are  offered,  an  antitype  of 
His  flesh  and  blood,  and  that  they  who  partake  of  the 
visible  bread,  spiritually  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Lord."  * 

Calling  bread  and  wine  "an  antitype"  of  the  body  and 
blood  seems  to  me  to  imply  that  the  bread  and  wine  are 
really  existent  things.  But  I  must  acknowledge  that 
that  particular  phrase  will  bear  readily  enough  either 
(1)  the  Virtuahst  interpretation,  "the  elements  are  the 
outward  sign  of  a  thing  not  present  save  in  force  and 
eJEcacy,"  or  (2)  the  interpretation  of  the  Oxford  School, 
"the  elements  are  the  outward  sign  of  a  thing  which  they 
conceal  within  their  veils,"  or  (3)  the  idea  which  I  am  here 
presenting  as  that  of  the  Fathers,  "the  elements  are  made 
actuaUy  to  be  our  Lord's  body  and  blood  in  a  sense  which 
is  new  and  unique."  A  great  deal  of  patristic  language 
wiD  bear  either  of  these  three  interpretations.  But  in 
1  P.  G.  34,  705. 


84         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

his  Homily  4  Macarius  uses  language  which  seems  to 
me  to  be  consistent  only  with  the  last  of  these  three 
views  of  the  Eucharistic  Mystery.     These  are  his  words: 

"The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  cometh  to  the  refreshment  of  worthy 
souls,  to  their  exaltation  and  delight  and  life  everlasting.  For 
tlie  Lord  emhodicth  Iliniscif  even  into  food  and  drink,  (as  it  is 
written  in  the  Gospel,  *He  that  eateth  of  this  bread  shall  live  for 
ever,'  that  He  may  ineffably  rest  the  soul,  and  fill  it  with  spiritual 
joy;  for  He  saith,  'I  am  the  bread  of  life.'  In  hke  manner  [He 
embodieth  Himself]  into  drink  of  a  heavenly  fountain,  as  He 
saith,  'He  who  drinketh  of  this  water  which  I  shall  give  him,  it 
shall  be  in  him  a  fountain  of  hving  water  springing  up  unto 
eternal  life.'  And  we  were  all,  it  says,  made  to  drink  of  the 
same  drink."  ^ 

Dr.  Pusey  warns  us  (p.  446,  n.  1)  that  "there  is  no 
special  stress,  in  this  passage,  on  the  word  aufiaTowoiei, 
'embodies,'  as  though  it  expressed  the  mode  of  the  Presence 
of  our  Lord  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  It  does  express  an 
indwelling,  so  to  speak,  a  Presence  within  the  consecrated 
elements,  but  no  relation  to  them  (such  as  '  Consubstantia- 
tion'  has  been  used  to  express),  nor  any  analogy  to  the 
Incarnation.  For  S.  Macarius  uses  this  same  word,  in 
this  very  context,  to  express  the  indwelling  of  the  Godhead 
in  faithful  souls."  I  confess  that  I  cannot  follow  this 
argument.  For  in  the  first  place,  I  know  not  by  what 
authority  Dr.  Pusey  can  speak  for  S.  Macarius,  and  assure 
us  that  the  elder  saint  laid  no  stress  on  his  so  remarkable 
word  <T03fjLaTOTroLel.  Then,  further,  I  should  say  that  in 
the  case  of  our  Lord's  indwelling  in  faithful  souls  He  had 
not  only  a  presence  in  them,  but  "a  relation  to  them." 
And  still  further,  I  should  say  confidently  that  in  the 
indwelling  of  our  Lord  in  faithful  souls  our  Lord  Himself 
means  us  to  find  an  "analogy  to  the  Incarnation."    I 

»  P.  G.  34,  481. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN    SCHOOL  85 

cannot  see  how  it  Is  proved  that  S.  Macarius  did  not 
think  of  our  Lord  as  taking  to  Himself  the  bread  of  the 
Eucharist  to  be  a  body,  distinct  from  His  natural  body, 
when  it  is  shown  that  S.  Macarius  uses  the  same  word  of 
our  Lord's  embodying  Himself  in  faithful  souls,  by  which 
act  we  all  agree  that  He  does  make  for  Himself  a  body 
distinct  from  His  natural  body,  being,  in  fact.  His  mystical 
body,  the  Church.  Let  me  write  down  a  few  of  the 
sentences  from  this  context  of  S.  Macarius,  and  let  them 
speak  for  themselves. 

"The  Infinite  and  Unapproachable  and  Uncreated  God  .  .  . 
embodied  Himself,  and,  so  to  speak,  contracted  Himself  from 
His  unapproachable  glory,  that  He  might  be  able  to  be  united 
with  His  visible  creatures  (as  with  souls  of  saints  and  with 
angels)  that  they  might  be  able  to  partake  of  the  Ufe  of  the  God- 
head. .  .  .  The  Infinite  and  Inconceivable  God  .  .  .  con- 
tracted Himself,  and  put  on  the  limbs  of  this  body,  and  gathered 
Himself  from  His  unapproachable  glory,  and  for  His  tenderness 
and  love  for  men,  being  transformed,  embodies  Himself,  and 
immingles  Himself,  and  takes  holy  and  well-pleasing  souls,  and 
becomes  'one  Spirit'  with  them  (according  to  the  divine  saying 
of  Paul),  soul,  so  to  speak,  to  soul,  and  substance  to  substance, 
that  the  soul  may  be  able  to  live  in  newness,  and  feel  the  im- 
mortal Ufe,  and  become  partaker  of  the  incorruptible  glory. 
.  .  .  When  He;  wiUeth,  He  becometh  fire,  .  .  .  When  He 
willeth.  He  is  joy  and  peace,  .  .  .  But  if  He  will  to  liken 
HimseK  to  one  of  His  creatures,  .  .  .  He  can  do  all  things  as 
He  wills.  .  .  .  All  things  are  easy  for  Him,  changing  Himself, 
as  He  willeth,  for  souls  faithful  and  worthy  of  Him.  .  .  .  For 
the  Lord  embodieth  Himself  even  into  food  and  drink." 

S.  Macarius  says  that  our  Lord  embodies  Himself  in 
His  Church,  and  in  some  like  sort  "embodies  Himself" 
in  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucharist.  I  am  willing, 
and  glad,  to  leave  that  with  you,  as  my  last  word  for 
to-day. 


LECTURE  IV 

BODIES  IDENTIFIED,  NOT  NECESSARILY  BODIES 
IDENTICAL,  AND  EXAMINATION  OF  THE  TES- 
TIMONIES OF  THE  ASIATIC  SCHOOLS 

SOME  years  ago,  I  found  in  a  Manual  of  Instruction 
for  Confirmation  and  First  Communion,  —  a  most 
excellent  Manual,  by  the  way,  —  prepared  by  a  priest  of 
the  American  Church,  who  has  since  been  made  a  bishop, 
this  extraordinary  phrase:  "Note  carefully  the  distinction 
between  the  bread  and  wine  and  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
our  Lord."  ^^  Extraordinary  I"  you  may  say.  "What  is 
extraordinary  about  that?"  Well,  it  is  certainly  a  very 
•  natural  expression  in  these  days.  It  is  a  fair  expression 
of  the  general  theological  attitude  of  the  Church,  of  the 
West,  at  any  rate,  for  a  thousand  years  past.  But  it 
does  seem  extraordinary  to  one  who  comes  to  it  with 
a  mind  steeped  in  the  language  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
first  five  centuries.  Distinction  between  the  consecrated 
bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucharist,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord!  A\Tiy,  the  idea  would 
have  been  to  all  the  early  writers  of  the  Church  repulsive 
and  unintelligible.^    I  am  afraid  that  in  their  haste  and 

*  A  Roman  writer  (Fr.  Vassall-Phillips  in  his  translation  of  S.  Optatus, 
p.  100,  n.  1)  rebukes  one  of  our  modern  Anglicans  for  telling  a  story  out 
of  S.  Optatus,  and  using  this  language:  "The  consecrated  elements  were 
thrown  to  the  dogs."  Fr.  Vassall-Phillips  complains,  most  justly: 
"S.  Optatus  WTites  nothing  concerning  'the  consecrated  elements.' 
The  very  word  'elements'  would  have  been  incomprehensible  to  him  in 

86 


BODIES   IDENTIFIED,   BUT   NOT   IDENTICAL    87 

heat  they  would  have  called  it  "heresy."  I  hasten  to 
say  that  I  do  not  call  it  "heresy."  But  I  ask  you  to  hold 
your  minds  open  to  the  evidence  that  such  Christian 
writers  as  are  to  speak  to  us  to-day  could  not  have  said 
such  a  thing,  and  could  not  have  understood  such  a  thing. 
They  could  distinguish  between  our  Lord's  body  in  the 
Eucharist  and  our  Lord's  body  in  heaven.  They  could 
never  have  distinguished  between  the  consecrated  bread 
and  our  Lord's  body  in  the  Eucharist.  Those  were  two 
names  for  the  same  thing. 

But  here  I  must  enter  a  cautela,  or  if  it  shall  seem  to 
any  hearers  a  better  phrase,  make  an  acknowledgment. 
Though  the  early  Christian  writers  distinguish  the  eucha- 
ristic  body  of  our  Lord  from  His  natural  body  in  which 
He  lived  this  earthly  life,  they  yet  identify  these  two 
bodies,  and  sometimes  ascribe  to  one  what  belongs  to  the 
other.  We  shall  find  striking  examples  of  these  modes 
of  speech  in  the  writings  of  S.  Augustine,  coming  to  be 
considered  in  our  next  Lecture.  If,  instead  of  having 
numerous  passages  of  his  writing  touching  the  mystery 
of  the  Eucharist,  we  had  but  two  or  three,  and  those 
limited  to  the  type  in  which  he  speaks  of  Jews  converted 
shortly  after  our  Lord's  Ascension  as  drinking  of  the 
blood  which  they  had  shed,  S.  Augustine  would  be 
quoted  triumphantly  as  holding  that  the  body  which  is 
upon  the  altar  is  identical  with  the  body  which  hung  upon 

this  connection.  He  does  call  the  Eucharist  'the  holy  body*  and  'the 
body  of  Christ.'  It  is  impossible  to  avoid  observing  the  contrast  be- 
tween Catholic  terminology  of  the  fourth,  and  Anglican  terminology  of 
the  twentieth  century."  Quite  true!  It  should  be  added  that  there 
are  contrasts  between  modern  Roman  theology  and  that  of  the  fourth 
century,  too.  Also,  the  early  writers  all  held  that  the  consecrated 
bread  and  wine  remained  as  bread  and  wine,  —  they  could  have  under- 
stood that,  —  and  they  spoke  always  of  that  bread  and  wine  as  being 
(not  containing)  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord. 


88         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

the  cross.  He  is  so  quoted  even  now.  But  we  shall 
find  that  he  has  other  passages  not  easily  reconcilable  with 
that  view. 

Yet  here  I  can  imagine  some  of  the  friends  with  whom 
I  am  usually  in  close  agreement  theologically,  —  friends 
who  hold  the  "Oxford  view,"  —  saying  to  me,  "It  is 
necessary  that  we  interpret  S.  Augustine  and  other 
Fathers  so  as  to  bring  them  into  consistency  with  this 
view  which  you  are  rejecting.  If  they  identify  the 
natural  body  of  our  Lord  with  the  body  on  the  altar, 
as  you  yourself  acknowledge,  and  eagerly  profess,  then 
it  simply  cannot  be  that  they  distinguish  one  from  the 
other.  You  cannot,  —  no  rational  being  can,  —  distin- 
guish two  bodies,  and  yet  identify  them.  You  cannot 
assign  to  one  body  the  things  which  belong  to  another 
body,  on  the  groimd  that  each  is  the  body  of  the  Lord." 

I  know  how  irresistible  that  argument  must  seem  to 
one  who  advances  it.  But  let  us  consider.  S.  Paul 
teaches  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh.  He  teaches  the 
identity  of  the  body  that  is  raised  with  the  body  that  is 
laid  down.  "AU  flesh  is  not  the  same  flesh"  is  part  of 
his  argument,  and  suggests  that  he  is  prepared  for  much 
of  difference.  But  certainly  he  teaches  identity.  "It  is 
sown  in  corruption;  it  is  raised  in  incorruption,  ...  It 
is  sown  a  psychic  body;  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body." 
It  is  the  same  subject  of  which  he  predicates  the  "corrup- 
tion" and  the  "incorruption,"  the  condition  of  being 
"psychical"  —  the  translation  "natural"  has  done  a 
world  of  harm  —  and  the  condition  of  being  "spiritual." 
S.  Paul  stands  ready  to  say  that  the  body  which  is  sown 
is  raised.  I  suppose  that  every  man  is  ready  to  say  that 
the  body  which  he  wears  now  is  the  body  in  which  he 
was  bom,  and  grew  up  to  manhood.  And  yet  the  body 
which  I  am  wearing  now  has,  quite  possibly,  not  a  single 


BODIES    IDENTIFIED,    BUT   NOT    IDENTICAL    89 

particle  of  the  matter  which  I  was  wearing  sixty-five 
years  ago.  Identity  of  matter  is  not  in  the  least  necessary 
to  secure  the  identity  of  my  body  in  one  estate  of  being 
with  my  body  in  another  estate  of  being.  Still  more  is 
this  true,  one  may  think,  in  the  case  of  the  resurrection. 
S.  Paul  teaches  that  the  new  body  is  a  very  different  body 
indeed  from  the  old  one  in  its  character  and  qualities. 
In  his  figure  of  the  seed  sown  he  may  seem  to  suggest 
that  some  part  of  the  material  of  the  old  body  is  taken  to 
help  in  constituting  the  new  body.  I  am  sure  that  no 
theologian  of  to-day  would  insist  that  all  the  material 
of  a  body  buried  must  be  restored  for  the  former  owner's 
use  in  the  body  raised.  I  doubt  if  many  theological 
scholars  would  insist  that  any  of  the  particular  material 
of  the  body  that  was  buried  must  be  used  for  the  clothing 
of  the  spirit  in  the  day  of  the  bodily  resurrection.  It  is 
enough  to  constitute  identity  of  my  body  in  one  estate  of 
being  and  my  body  in  another  estate  of  being  that  each 
body  is  mine.  What  is  my  embodiment  at  one  time  or 
place,  and  what  is  my  embodiment  at  another  time  or 
place  is  all  part  of  one  embodying.  It  is  all  one  body, 
for  it  is  mine.  And  yet  the  body  of  my  old  age  is  one 
body,  and  the  body  of  my  early  childhood  is  another  body, 
and  the  body  of  my  resurrection  will  be,  in  a  very  true 
sense,  another.  No  matter  how  many  bodies  we  may 
find  a  man  to  have,  we  instinctively  identify  them.  It  is 
one  body  all  the  way  through.  Our  language  is  not 
unnatural,  our  thought  is  not  irrational. 

And  let  me  add  that  the  ascription  of  things  which 
belong  to  one  body  of  our  Lord  to  another,  because  both 
are  His,  is  no  more  strange  than  the  language  which 
speaks  of  "the  Church  of  God,  which  He  hath  purchased 
with  His  own  blood,"  or  of  the  blessed  Virgin  as  "the 
Mother  of  God,"  or  of  "the  Son  of  Man,  which  is  in 


90         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

heaven,"  spoken  when  our  Lord  was  not  yet  ascended 
in  His  body.  And  we  shall  do  well  to  remember  how  S. 
Augustine  identifies  the  eucharistic  body  of  our  Lord 
with  His  mystical  body,  the  Church.  "We  are"  says  S. 
Augustine,  "that  which  we  receive.*'  Yet  every  one  of 
us  will  recognize  that  the  body,  the  Church,  is  numeri- 
cally "a  different  body,"  and  is  distinguishable  as  the 
body  of  our  Lord,  from  that  body  which  is  enthroned  in 
heaven.  The  conclusion  which  I  draw  from  what  I 
have  been  saying  is  that  when  we  find  any  early  Christian 
writer  clearly  identifying  the  body  of  our  Lord  in  the 
Eucharist  with  the  body  of  His  natural  flesh,  or  with  the 
body  of  His  glory,  we  are  not  thereby  estopped  from 
finding  that  that  same  Christian  writer  made  that  very 
distinction  which  we  have  found  so  many  Christian 
writers  making,  between  the  one  body  and  the  other 
body,  between  the  body  which  is  bread  divinely  assumed, 
and  the  body  which  is  flesh  divinely  assumed.  With 
this  caidela  we  may  proceed  to  examine  the  testimony  of 
writers  of  the  different  Asiatic  Schools. 

The  School  of  Antioch,  and  Other  Asiatic  Schools 


S.  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  the   Buening    Enthusiast, 
(circa  a.d.    110) 

S.  Ignatius,  made  a  martyr  very  early  in  the  second 
century,  after  having  been  Bishop  of  Antioch,  we  know 
not  how  long,  is  an  interesting  witness  because  of  his 
nearness  to  the  Apostles.  He  makes  it  clear,  in  the 
few  words  of  his  that  have  come  down  to  us,  touching  our 
subject,  that  the  thought  that  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Altar  is  a  great  power  was  one  of  the  original  thoughts  of 


THE    ASIATIC   SCHOOLS  91 

the  Church  of  Christ.  He  speaks  of  Christians  as  break- 
ing "one  bread,  which  is  the  medicine  of  immortahty, 
the  antidote  that  we  should  not  die,  but  live  in  Christ 
for  ever."^  I  ask  you  to  observe,  as  we  pass,  that,  after 
the  manner  of  the  Fathers  generally,  Ignatius  looks  upon 
the  holy  bread,  an  earthly  element  that  can  be  broken 
by  men's  hands,  as  having  this  marvellous  character  of 
an  "antidote  that  we  should  not  die."  Our  saint  says 
also,  "Haste  ye,  then,  to  partake  of  one  Eucharist,  for 
there  is  one  flesh  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  one  cup 
for  uniting  men  with  His  blood,  one  altar."  ^  It  should 
be  observed  that  "one  flesh  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ" 
is  not  necessarily  a  numerical  expression.  Certainly, 
"one  Eucharist,"  "one  cup,"  "one  altar,"  are  not  numeri- 
cal expressions.  I  mean  that  speaking  of  "one  flesh"  in 
this  way  does  not  necessarily  exclude  the  possibility  that 
several  things  might  be  equally  worthy  of  the  name,  and 
be  included  under  that  designation.  In  that  same  view, 
most  certainly,  "one  Eucharist,"  "one  cup,"  "one  altar," 
are  not  numerical  expressions.  S.  Ignatius  did  not  mean 
to  imply  that  there  were  not  many  Eucharists  celebrated, 
many  cups  used,  many  altars  set  up  in  Christian  churches. 
And  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt,  I  think,  that  Ignatius 
would  have  been  quite  ready  to  say  that  there  was  but 
"one  flesh"  of  our  Lord  even  numerically,  so  earnestly 
does  he  fix  his  gaze  on  the  identification  of  the  body  of 
the  altar  with  the  body  natural.  For  writing  against 
the  Docetae,  those  heretics  who  maintained  that  our 
Lord  could  not  have  assumed  anything  so  evil  as  a  material 
body,  he  writes  these  words: 

"They  abstain  from  Eucharist  and  prayer,  because  they  con- 
fess not  that  the  Eucharist  is  the  flesh  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 

»  Ad  Ephes.  xx;    P.  G.  5,  661.  ^  ^^^  Philad.  iv.;    P.  G.  5.  700. 


92         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Christ,  wliich  suffered  for  our  sins,  which  the  Father  in  His 
mercy  raised  again.  They,  then,  who  speak  against  the  gifts 
die  disputing.  Good  had  it  been  for  them  to  love,  that  they 
might  rise  again." ^ 

This,  it  will  be  observed,  is  a  very  distinct  identifying 
of  the  body  of  the  altar  with  the  body  of  the  cross  and  of 
the  resurrection.  I  must  not  minimize  its  meaning. 
Yet  I  must  here  note  two  points  by  way  of  safeguard 
against  unwarranted  deduction  from  this  strong  language. 
The  first  is  that  such  expressions  are  rare  in  the  patristic 
writings.  "What  difference  does  it  make,"  I  can  imagine 
one  of  my  critics  asking,  "What  difference  does  it  make 
whether  a  thing  is  said  often,  or  only  said  rarely,  so  long 
as  it  expresses  the  mind  of  the  Cathohc  Church,  and  is 
entirely  true?"  I  answer,  that  what  is  said  very  rarely 
by  Christian  writers  in  connection  with  a  great  mystery 
is  likely  to  be  something  which  may  be  said,  because  it 
is  true  in  a  sense,  something  which  may  be  said  with  a 
stretching  of  our  human  words.  I  myself  hold  the 
language  of  Ignatius  to  be  justifiable,  but  it  is  not  what 
one  finds,  as  one  reads  down  through  the  early  centuries, 
to  be  the  common  language  of  the  Church. 

The  other  point  in  connection  with  this  phrase  of  S. 
Ignatius  is  that  even  here,  where  he  is  distinctly  identify- 
ing the  body  of  the  Eucharist  with  the  body  of  our  Lord's 
earthly  life,  there  is  no  indication  of  that  turning  of  the 
mind's  eye  to  the  glorified  body  on  the  heavenly  throne, 
which  is  so  characteristic  of  modern  devotion. 

We  have  found  such  language  as  this  of  Ignatius 
exceptional  in  the  West,  and  among  the  Alexandrians. 
We  shall  find  it  exceptional  among  the  Asiatics,  whom 
we  are  about  to  examine.  This  Ignatius  was  an  ardent 
soul.  The  blunder  of  Latin  writers  in  much  later  times, 
»  Ad  Smym.  7;    P.  G.  5,  713. 


THE    ASIATIC   SCHOOLS  93 

who  tried  to  connect  his  name  with  their  Latin  word, 
ignis,  "a  fire,"  was  a  wise  sort  of  folly.  He  was  "a  fire," 
blazing  up  to  heaven.  They  were  right  about  that. 
Like  another  great  saint  of  Antioch,  three  centuries  later, 
S.  John  of  the  Golden  Mouth,  whose  title  we  have  kept 
nearly  in  its  Greek  form,  as  "Chrysostom,"  he  came  to 
the  subject  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  not  as  a  theological 
instructor,  framing  definitions  with  balanced  care,  but 
as  a  preacher,  a  poet,  an  orator,  looking  for  the  greatest 
things  that  he  could  say,  to  stir  their  hearts  and  arouse 
their  emotions.  It  may  be  added  in  regard  to  our  present 
author  that  these  three  scraps  of  writing  which  I  have 
quoted  are  all  that  we  have  of  this  impassioned  preacher 
on  his  way  to  martyrdom,  by  which  to  measure  what 
may  have  been  his  utterances  as  a  careful  teacher  ex- 
pounding the  subject  of  the  Eucharist  to  pupils  with 
minds  as  yet  unformed. 

I  must  add  one  more  reflection.  S.  Ignatius  here 
brings  his  eucharistic  reference  to  bear  against  the  Docetae, 
who  would  not  acknowledge  that  our  Lord's  body  of 
flesh  could  have  been  anything  but  a  phantom  deluding 
men's  natural  senses.  If,  now,  he  had  regarded  the 
Church  as  teaching  that  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  was 
not  really  our  Lord's  body,  but  only  a  veil  deluding  the 
senses,  while  behind  that  veil  our  Lord  was  offering  men 
a  body  that  was  present  only  after  the  manner  of  spirit, 
without  any  material  quality,  I  think  that  he  would 
have  avoided  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist  in  this  particular 
controversy,  or  else  would  have  entered  into  careful 
explanations  to  show  that  the  nature  of  the  Presence  in 
the  Eucharist  did  not  after  all  support  the  contention  of 
the  Docetae,  as  in  that  case  they  would  certainly  have 
claimed  that  it  did.  Doubtless,  I  shall  be  told  that  the 
Church  had  not  yet  got  its  mind  clear  as  to  the  nature 


94         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

of  the  Presence,  had  not,  at  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century,  developed  a  theory  of  the  Presence  at  all.  That 
would,  of  course,  minimize  the  value  of  Ignatius  of  An- 
tioch  as  a  theologian,  and  make  his  utterances  of  no 
particular  value,  except  so  far  as  they  may  seem  to 
represent  a  settled  habit  of  utterance  on  the  part  of  the 
Church.  We  will  pass  on,  then,  and  enlarge  our  collection 
of  testimonies,  for  it  is  only  the  united  testimony  of 
many  voices  which  will  give  us  anything  that  we  can 
rightly  call  the  voice  of  the  Church. 


n 

FRAGMENTS  FROM  ASIATICS  OF  THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD 
CENTURIES 

Melito,  Bishop   of   Sardis;    Tatian,  the   Assyrian: 
S.  FiRMiLiAN,  Bishop  of  Caesarea 

There  is  a  most  remarkable  paucity  of  great  writers  in 
the  Asiatic  provinces  of  the  Church  in  the  next  two 
centuries  after  the  martyrdom  of  S.  Ignatius.  Some  of 
those  who  had  great  reputation  in  their  day  have  left 
nothing  that  has  come  down  to  us.  Some  have  left  us 
nothing  that  touches  our  present  subject.  I  group 
together  a  few  fragments  out  of  the  second  century  and 
the  third. 

1.  Melito,  Bishop  of  Sardis,  who  in  the  year  170  pre- 
sented a  Defense  of  Christians  to  the  Emperor  Antoninus, 
wrote  also  a  Key  to  the  Interpretation  of  Scripture,  referred 
to  by  its  title  in  Latin  versions  as  his  Clavis,  in  which  he 
set  out  to  give  the  spiritual  meaning  of  words  used  mysti- 
cally in  Scripture.  One  of  the  explanations  in  the  Clavis 
is  this: 


THE   ASIATIC    SCHOOLS  95 

"Wine:  the  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Gospel.  *He  that  eateth 
My  flesh,  and  drinketh  My  blood.'" 

Now  the  only  passage  in  the  Gospel  where  "wine" 
could  be  said  to  be  used  with  a  mystical  meaning  for 
"the  blood  of  Christ"  is  in  the  words  of  distribution. 
The  explanation  in  the  Clavis  makes  it  clear  that  to  S. 
Melito  "This  is  my  blood"  meant  "This  wine  is  my 
blood,"  not  "This  great  heavenly  gift  which  I  am  offering 
invisibly  is  my  blood."  It  is  only  here  that  wine  can  be 
said  to  be  used  figuratively  for  "blood"  in  any  Gospel. 

2.  A  passage  from  Tatian,  the  Assyrian,  maker  of  the 
first  Harmony  of  the  Gospels  ever  attempted,  who  was  at 
Rome  about  a.d.  172,  comes  to  much  the  same  thing: 

"And  then  having  taken  bread,  and  afterwards  the  cup  of 
wine,  He  bore  witness  that  it  was  His  body  and  blood,  and 
bade  them  eat  and  drink,  for  that  it  was  a  memorial  of  His 
coming  suffering  and  death."     [Pusey,  327,] 

It  simply  shows  that  in  the  current  Christian  speech 
bread  and  wine  were  spoken  of  as  being  really  the  body 
and  blood  of  the  Lord.  Tatian  had  fallen  into  one  of 
the  Gnostic  heresies,  but  in  this  particular  he  speaks  just 
as  all  Christians  were  speaking. 

3.  In  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  we  come  to  a 
great  personage,  S.  Firmilian,  Bishop  of  Caesarea  in 
Cappadocia,  a  friend  of  Origen,  a  correspondent  of  S. 
Cyprian.  He  was  a  power  in  his  day,  but  not  a  volu- 
minous writer,  and  we  have  from  him  as  concerning  the 
Eucharist  only  a  passing  word.  He  is  writing  of  persons 
who  had  denied  Christ  in  times  of  persecution,  and  were 
by  most  of  the  faithful  regarded  as  excommunicate 
beyond  restoration  in  this  life.  His  letter  is  preserved  as 
Ixxv.^  among  the  Epistles  of  S.  Cyprian: 

1  P.  L.  3, 1172. 


96         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

"  How  great  is  the  sin,  whether  of  those  who  admit,  or  of 
those  admitted,  that  ....  they,  in  communion  rashly  granted, 
should  touch  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  whereas  it  is 
written,  'Whosoever  shall  eat  the  bread,  or  drink  the  cup  of 
the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  the  Lord.'  " 

To  S.  Firmilian  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  can  be 
"touched."  That  is  a  natural  expression  to  him,  as  to 
S.  Didymus  of  Alexandria. 

in 

Early  Fourth  Century  Writers:     ADAMANTros 

AND    EUSEBIUS    OF    CaESAREA 

An  anonymous  writer  whose  book  of  Dialogues  is 
printed  along  with  the  works  of  Origen,  and  who  is  quoted 
under  the  name  of  Adamantius,  because  he  gives  that 
name  to  the  Catholic  speaker  in  his  debates,  has  this  to 
say  against  the  followers  of  Marcion : 

"If,  as  these  say,  he  was  fleshless  and  bloodless,  of  what 
flesh  and  of  what  body,  and  of  what  blood,  did  He  giving  the 
images  (tlKovas) ,  both  bread  and  cup,  enjoin  upon  the  disciples 
to  make  through  these  the  memorial  of  Him?"^ 

Here  that  bread  and  wine  which  our  Lord  called  His 
body  and  blood,  and  which  the  Church  had  constantly 
proclaimed  to  be  made  to  be  His  body  and  blood,  are 
called  "images"  of  the  Lord's  body  and  blood.  But  it 
is  not  at  all  to  be  supposed  that  the  writer  of  those  words 
would  have  found  any  difficulty  in  using  the  more  common 
language  of  the  Church  as  well. 

The  same  is  true  of  Eusebius,  the  great  Church  his- 
torian, and  Bishop  of  the  Palestinian  Caesarea.    I  find 

>  P.G.U,  1840- 


THE   ASIATIC    SCHOOLS  97 

no  passage  in  which  he  identifies  the  bread  of  the  Eucha- 
rist with  our  Lord's  body,  though  he  is  clear  that  we 
receive  what  is,  in  some  sense,  the  body  of  our  Lord  in 
our  communions.  Probably  he  simply  does  not  happen 
to  use  the  more  common  speech.  But  he  really  does 
emphasize  the  idea  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  symbols 
of  our  Lord's  natural  flesh  and  blood.  And  he  makes  it 
clear  that  he  opposed  "symbol"  to  "literal  fact"  exactly 
as  we  do.  Speaking  of  this  very  subject  of  the  Eucharist, 
in  his  Demonstratio  Evangelica  (to  use  the  Latin  title), 
he  uses  this  language: 

I  "Being  admitted  to  the  sacrifice  and  priestly  ministration 
which  are  better  than  those  of  ancient  times,  we  deem  it  no 
longer  holy  to  fall  back  to  the  first  and  weak  elements,  which 
were  symbols  and  images,  but  did  not  embrace  the  truth  itself."  ^ 

Eusebius  uses  such  words  as  "symbol"  and  "image" 
just  as  we  do,  and  just  as  rational  beings  do  generally. 
A  "symbol"  of  a  thing  is  not  the  thing  itself.  If  certain 
bread  is  a  "symbol"  of  our  Lord's  body,  and  also  is  our 
Lord's  body,  it  must  be  a  symbol  of  the  body  in  one 
meaning  of  the  word  "body,"  and  be  actually  the  body 
in  another  meaning  of  the  word  "body."  But  let  us 
hear  what  Eusebius  has  to  say,  himseK.  I  make  scattered 
extracts  from  the  same  book:  ^ 

"Having,  then,  received  the  memory  of  this  sacrifice  to 
celebrate  upon  the  table  by  means  of  the  symbols  of  His  body 
and  His  saving  blood,  .  .  .  We  have  been  taught  to  offer, 
all  Hfe  long,  bloodless  and  reasonable  and  acceptable  sacrifices 
to  the  supreme  God  through  His  High  Priest,  who  is  over  all. 
.  ,  .  These  sacrifices,  immaterial  and  in  idea  {aaufiaTovs  Kal 
poepai  Ovaias),  again  the  words  of  the  prophet  proclaim  [quot- 

1  Dem.  Ev.  I.  x.  18;    P.  G.  22,  88. 

'  The  context  is  given  somewhat  largely  in  Stone,  pp.  110,  111. 


98         THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

ing  Psalm  1.  14,  15]."  (Dcm.  Evangel.  I.  x,  28-38)  .  .  .  "After 
the  manner  of  Melchizctlck.  .  .  .  For  as  that  priest  of  the 
Gentiles  never  seems  to  have  used  bodily  sacrifices,  but  only 
wine  and  bread,  when  he  blessed  Abraham,  so  our  Saviour  and 
Lord  Himself,  and  then  all  the  priests  who  in  succession  from 
Him  are  throughout  all  the  nations,  .  .  .  represent  in  a  mystery 
(a'lvlTTovT ai)  with  wine  and  bread  the  mysteries  of  His  body 
and  saving  blood."  ^ 

In  a  later  passage  of  the  same  book  (VIIL  i.  78-80) 
Eusebius  comments  thus  on  Jacob's  blessing  of  Judah, 
Gen.  xlix.  12: 

"And  I  think  that  the  passages,  'His  eyes  gladdening  from 
wine,'  ^  and  'His  teeth  whiter  than  milk,'  again  mystically  refer 
to  the  mysteries  of  the  new  covenant  of  our  Saviour.  For  it  is 
my  opinion  that  the  words  'His  eyes  gladdening  from  wine' 
signify  the  gladness  from  the  mystic  wine  which  He  gave  to 
His  own  disciples,  saying,  'Take,  drink,  this  is  My  blood  which  is 
poured  out  for  you  for  the  remission  of  sins;  do  this  for  My 
memorial,'  and  that  the  words  'His  teeth  whiter  than  milk' 
signify  the  brightness  and  purity  of  the  mystic  food.  For 
again  He  gave  to  the  disciples  the  symbols  of  the  divine  dis- 
pensation, bidding  them  make  the  image  (eucSvas)  of  His  ovm 
body."  3 

There  are  a  few  more  passages  which  I  might  quote, 
but  these  will  be  enough  to  show  how  the  mind  of  Eusebius 
dwelt  habitually  on  the  thought  of  the  elements  in  the 
Eucharist  as  "symbols,"  and  as  having  a  "mystic" 
meaning.  He  seems  to  me  to  be  the  first  writer  whom  we 
have  encountered  who  shows  a  mind  cold  toward  mystery 
in   revelation,   rather   than   warm    towards   it.     Of   two 

»  Dem.  Evangel.  V.  iii.  18,  19;   P.  G.  22,  365. 

*  Eusebius  read  the  verse  in  the  Greek  of  the  LXX  version:  x<ipo^oto2 
ol  6<l>0a\ixol  avTov  virip  oIj'oj'. 
s  P.  G.  22,  593,  696. 


THE   ASIATIC    SCHOOLS  99 

things  which  might  be  said,  he  seems  invariably  to  say 
the  lesser.  Yet  I  do  not  think  that  he,  though  he  had 
Arian  leanings,  really  departed  from  the  eucharistic 
theology  of  the  Church.  In  a  work  on  The  Theology  of 
the  Church  (iii,  12)  he  particularly  distinguishes  between 
the  eucharistic  body  of  our  Lord  and  His  natural  body: 

"Do  you,  receiving  the  Scriptures  of  the  Gospels,  perceive 
the  whole  teaching  of  our  Saviour,  that  He  did  not  speak  con- 
cerning the  flesh  which  He  had  taken,  but  concerning  His 
mystic  body  and  blood.  .  .  .  He  instructed  them  to  understand 
spiritually  (wvevfiaTLKus)  the  words  which  He  had  spoken 
concerning  His  flesh  and  His  blood;  for,  He  says,  you  must  not 
consider  Me  to  speak  of  the  flesh  which  I  wear  {■ffv  irept/cei/ioi), 
as  if  you  were  to  eat  that,  nor  suppose  that  I  command  you  to 
drink  perceptible  and  corporal  (a-wfiaTiKop)  blood.  .  .  .  These 
things  profit  nothing,  if  they  are  understood  according  to  sense 
(aiaOriTus) ;  but  the  Spirit  is  the  Life,  given  to  those  who  are 
able  to  imderstand  spiritually."  ^ 

IV 

S.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Instructor  of 
Catechumens 

Cyril,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  from  a.d.  351  to  a.d.  386,  is 
chiefly  noted  for  his  Catechetical  Lectures,  delivered  to 
persons  preparing  for  Baptism,  Confirmation,  and  their 
first  Communion,  while  he  was  still  a  presbyter,  in  348. 
The  first  point  to  be  noted  about  this  careful  and  sys- 
tematic theological  teaching  is  that  S.  Cyril  impresses 
upon  his  candidates  a  mental  habit  of  grouping  the 
outward  elements  of  these  three  sacraments  together,  and 
regarding  them  in  much  the  same  way.  All  are  bare 
elements,  to  begin  with.  All  are  consecrated,  and  so 
1  P.  G.  24,  1071,  1074. 


100       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

have  some  great  thing  done  to  them,  after  which  they 
are  not  "bare"  elements  any  more,  but  filled  with  spiritual 
power.     Here  is  his  language  about  Baptism: 

"Look  not  to  the  laver,  as  being  simple  water,  but  to  the 
spiritual  grace  that  is  given  with  the  water.  For  as  the  things 
that  are  brought  to  the  heathen  altars,  though  simple  in  their 
nature,  become  defiled  by  the  invocation  of  the  idols,  so  con- 
trariwise the  simple  {\it6v)  water,  on  receiving  the  invocation 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  Christ  and  of  the  Father,  acquires  the 
power  of  hoUness."* 

In  like  manner  S.  Cyril  speaks  of  the  oil  of  Confirma- 
tion, now  so  unhappily  disused  in  the  Anglican  Com- 
munion, by  one  of  the  worst,  and  most  inconsistent, 
mistakes  of  our  Reformers  honestly  endeavoring  to  re- 
store the  Church  to  a  real  primitive  Catholicity  of  doctrine 
and  usage: 

"But  beware  of  supposing  this  to  be  bare  (^iXdv)  ointment. 
For  as  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist,  after  the  invocation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  is  no  longer  simple  {\it6s)  bread,  but  the  body  of 
Christ,  so  also  is  this  holy  ointment  no  longer  bare  ointment, 
nor,  so  to  say,  common  (Koivdv),  after  the  mvocation,  but 
becomes  Christ's  gift  of  grace  (xapiffMa).  and  by  the  coming 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  fit  to  impart  His  Godhead,  which  ointment 
is  symbolically  applied  to  thy  forehead,  and  to  thy  organs  of 
sense  beside,  and  wliile  thy  body  is  anointed  with  visible  oint- 
ment, thy  soul  is  sanctified  by  the  Holy  and  Life-giving  Spirit."  ^ 

We  are  warned  by  Dr.  Darwell  Stone  in  his  History  of 
the  Doctrine  of  the  Hobj  FAicharist  (I.  69)  that  it  will  not 
do  to  assume  that  writers  who  make  this  sort  of  com- 
parison—  we  shall  find  the  same  thing  in  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  —  regarded  the  power 
that  entered  into  the  other  sacraments  as  in  any  way 

»  Lect.  iii.  3;    P.O.  33,  429.         ="  Lcct.  xxi.  3;    P.  G.  33,  1089,  1092. 


THE   ASIATIC   SCHOOLS  101 

comparable  with  the  power  that  entered  into  the  elements 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  The  comparison,  Dr.  Stone 
would  have  us  think,  is  in  the  fact  that  there  is  a  change 
in  each  case,  and  that  there  comes  a  presence  of  power. 
This  comparison  must  not  be  pressed  to  exclude  great 
diflFerences  further  on.  That  is  quite  just.  But  I  would 
point  out  that  S.  Cyril  was  here  instructing  beginners, 
and  if  his  comparison  had  carried  along  with  it,  in  his 
own  view,  a  tremendous  contrast  also,  I  humbly  think 
that  he  would  here,  or  somewhere  in  his  addresses,  have 
given  some  word  of  warning  to  that  effect.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  he  ascribes  to  the  oil  of  Confirmation  a  special 
presence  of  our  Lord  in  His  Godhead  (of  course  not  with- 
out His  Manhood,  which  is  from  His  Godhead  now 
inseparable).  He  must  have  ascribed  as  great  a  Presence 
of  our  Lord  to  the  water  of  Baptism,  surely,  which  he 
regarded  as  no  longer  mere  water,  but  a  sacrament  by 
which  men  are  made  to  be  members  of  the  very  body  of 
the  Lord.  In  all  three  sacraments,  according  to  the 
teaching  of  S.  Cyril,  our  Lord  embodies  Himself.  It  is 
our  task  to  find,  if  we  can,  how  that  embodying  of  Himself 
in  the  elements  of  the  Eucharist  by  our  Lord  appeared  to 
S.  Cyril's  mind.  We  shall  find  him  asserting  most 
emphatically  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  the  body  and 
blood  of  our  Lord,  having  been  changed  into  them,  and 
also  using  the  words  "type"  and  "antitype"  as  freely  as 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea. 

"Regard,  then,  the  bread  and  the  wine  not  as  bare  (^iXots) 
elements,  for  they  are  (rvyxapei)  ^  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  according  to  the  declaration  of  the  Lord."  ^ 

^  I  suggest  that  the  Greek  word  ru-yxai'w  can  be  used  for  elul  only 
when  there  is  an  element  of  the  accidental,  the  unexpected,  or  the 
non-literal.  I  think  that  I  find  here  a  suggestion  of  the  last,  the 
"non-literal."     The  words  "body"  and  "blood"  are  without  the  article. 

2  Lect.  xxii.  6;    P.  G.  33,  1101. 


102       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

"He  once  at  Cana  of  Galilee  changed  the  water  into  wine 
akin  to  blood;  and  is  it  incredible  that  He  should  change  wine 
into  blood?  ...  In  the  figure  (t^ttv)  of  bread  is  given  to  thee 
the  body,  and  in  the  figure  of  wine  is  given  to  thee  the  blood,  in 
order  that  by  partaking  of  a  body  and  blood  of  Christ  thou 
mayest  become  of  one  body  and  of  one  blood  (avacrwuos  Kal 
cvfaLfios)  with  Him.  For  so  also  do  we  become  Christ-bearers 
(xp^aTO(t>6poi) ,  since  His  body  and  blood  are  distributed 
throughout  our  members.  Thus,  according  to  the  saying  of 
the  blessed  Peter,  we  become  partakers  of  the  divine  nature."  ^ 

"  The  seeming  {<i>aLv6titvos)  bread  is  not  bread,  even  though 
it  is  sensible  to  the  taste,  but  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the 
seeming  wine  is  not  wine,  even  though  the  taste  will  have  it 
so,  but  the  blood  of  Christ."  "^ 

"Trust  not  the  judgment  to  thy  bodily  palate;  no,  but  to 
unfaltering  faith;  for  they  who  taste  are  bidden  to  taste  not 
bread  and  wine,  but  the  antitype  {avrnvivov)  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ.  "3 

These  passages  taken,  each  by  itself,  would  be  capable 
of  sustaining  different  interpretations.  I  think  that  to 
make  S.  Cyril  consistent  with  himself,  we  must  apply 
such  explanations  as  these:  (1)  "The  seeming  bread  is 
not  bread"  will  mean  plainly  that  that  which  seems  to  be 
mere  bread  is  not  mere  bread,  but  our  Lord's  (eucharistic) 
body;  (2)  "In  the  figure  of  bread  is  given  to  thee  the 
body"  will  have  to  be  taken  appositionally,  as  when  we 
say  that  "we  see  in  our  Lord  the  pattern  man";  (3)  we 
must  particularly  note  that  according  to  S.  Cyril  the 
body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  are  "distributed  throughout 
our  members,"  i.  e.,  he  gives  these  great  names  to  the 
material  elements  by  which  our  bodies  are  nourished. 

But  we  must  here  add  that  just  as  S.  Cyril  has  one 
sense  of  the  words  "body"  and  "blood"  in  which  he  can 

»  Lcct.  xxii.  2.  3;    P.  G.  33,  1097,  1100. 

2  Lcct.  xxii.  9;    P.  G.  33.  1104.  »  Lcct.  x-xiii.  20;    P.  G.  33,  1120. 


THE   ASIATIC    SCHOOLS  103 

speak  of  our  Lord's  body  and  blood  as  being  distributed 
throughout  our  members,  so  also  he  has  a  mystical  use  of 
the  word  "bread,"  —  for  he  is  a  mystical  soul,  —  in 
which  he  will  say  that  our  "bread"  cannot  be  subject 
to  bodily  processes.  Hear  him  commenting  on  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  in  which  he  read  kxLoixnov  aprov  (which 
we  render  "daily  bread"),  and  took  it  as  meaning  "sub- 
stantial bread": 

"Give  us  this  day  our  substantial  bread.  This  common 
bread  is  not  substantial  {iiriovaioi) ,  but  this  holy  bread  is 
substantial,  that  is,  appointed  for  the  substance  (ovaLa)  of  the 
soul.  For  this  bread  does  not  go  into  the  belly,  and  is  not  cast 
out  into  the  draught,  but  it  is  imparted  to  your  whole  system 
for  the  benefit  of  body  and  soul."  ^ 

Here  he  is  taking  "this  holy  bread"  as  a  title  of  our 
Lord  Himself,  acting  the  part  of  "bread."  It  is  as 
natural  to  him  to  do  that  as  to  use  the  words  "body" 
and  "blood"  (under  our  Lord's  direction)  for  bread  and 
wine  which  our  Lord  uses  as  a  body  and  a  blood. 

I  add  one  more  passage,  which  is  of  interest  because 
it  seems  to  be  a  plain  allusion  to  the  Liturgy  of  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem,  as  S.  Cyril  used  to  hear  it  used. 

*'We  beseech  the  merciful  God  to  send  the  Holy  Ghost  upon 
the  oblations,  that  He  may  make  the  bread  the  body  of  Christ, 
and  the  wine  the  blood  of  Christ,  for  whatever  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  touched,  is  surely  consecrated  and  changed."  ^ 

1  Lect.  xxiii.  15;    P.  G.  33,  1113,  1116. 

2  Lect.  xxiii.  7;    P.  G.  33,  1113,  1116. 


104       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 


S.  Epiphanius,  Encyclopedic  Scholar, 
Bishop  a.d.  367-403 

Epiphanius,  Bishop  of  Salamis  in  the  Island  of  Cyprus, 
called  from  his  exceptional  knowledge  of  languages  "the 
man  of  five  tongues,"  for  to  Greek  and  Latin  he  added 
Egyptian,  Hebrew  and  Syriac,  was  not  a  man  of  broad 
mind,  of  generous  sympathies,  of  any  particular  heights 
or  depths.  All  the  more  we  may  take  him  as  reflecting 
just  the  common  theology  of  his  day.  Like  S.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  he  calls  the  eucharistic  elements  "antitypes," 
and  also  brings  Baptism  and  the  Eucharist  into  closer 
comparison  than  is  common  in  modern  theology. 

"When  Abraham  was  eighty  or  ninety  years  old,  more  or 
less,  then  Melchizedek  met  him,  and  brought  forth  bread  and 
wine,  prefiguring  the  mysteries  of  the  sacraments,  which  are 
antitypical  of  our  Lord,  who  said,  'I  am  the  living  bread,'  an- 
titypical,  too,  of  the  blood  from  His  pierced  side,  which  flowed 
forth  for  the  purification  of  those  that  are  defiled,^  and  for  the 
cleansing  and  salvation  of  our  souls." ^ 

1  think  it  worth  while  to  point  out  that  the  writer  does 
not  set  forth  the  sacramental  wine  as  an  antitype  of  an 
invisible  spiritual  reality  by  it  conveyed.  He  points  to 
the  wine  as  an  antitype  of  a  past  historical  fact,  of  some- 
thing, in  fact,  which  has  ceased  to  exist.  The  wine, 
according  to  fourth  century  opinion,  was  an  antitype  of 
the  blood  shed  from  the  pierced  side  long  ago.  It  was 
the  blood  that  Christians  were  receiving  now. 

'  Dr.  Pusey  strangely  translates  tuv  KtKotvointvuv,  "of  those  who 
communicate."  It  certainly  means,  "of  those  who  have  been  made 
common"  {koivoI),  that  is,  unholy. 

2  Adv.  Ilaer.  55  n.  G;   Pusey,  p.  101;   P.  G.  41,  981. 


THE   ASIATIC    SCHOOLS  105 

In  his  exposition  of  the  Faith,  with  which  he  concluded 
his  book  Against  Heresies,  he  refers  to  the  fulfiUing  of  the 
prophet's  word  "concerning  the  transfer  of  power,  con- 
cerning the  offer  of  salvation  by  the  power,"  —  he  is 
referring  to  Isaiah  iii.  1,  where  we  read  of  God's  taking 
from  Jerusalem  "the  staff  of  bread  and  the  staff  of  water," 
and  he  regards  these  as  taken  from  the  elder  church  to  be 
given  to  the  later,  — 

"concerning  the  oflFer  of  salvation  by  the  power  of  bread 
taken  from  Jerusalem,  and  by  the  strength  of  water.  And  here 
the  power  of  bread  and  the  strength  of  water  being  made  strong 
in  Christ,  that  not  bread  may  be  made  power  for  us,  but  power 
attach  to  bread,  bread  is  indeed  a  food,  but  the  power  must  be 
in  it  to  gender  hfe.  And  this  is  not  (a  plan)  that  water  should 
save  us  by  itself,  but  that  in  the  power  that  belongs  to  the  water 
by  help  of  faith  and  active  work  and  hope  and  the  ministering 
of  sacraments  and  the  entitling  of  sainthood,  it  should  come  to 
be  to  us  an  accomplishment  of  salvation."  ^ 

It  seems  noteworthy  that  here,  as  with  S.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  there  is  no  suggestion  that  the  power  of  our 
Lord  present  in  the  element  of  water  is  less  than,  or 
different  from,  the  power  of  our  Lord  present  in  the 
elements  of  bread  and  wine.  It  may  be  observed  also 
that  in  this  passage,  which  is  one  of  those  offered  by  Dr. 
Pusey  in  support  of  such  a  phrase  as  that  our  Lord's 
body  is  "in  the  eucharistic  bread,"  Epiphanius  does  not 
say  that  our  Lord's  body  is  in  the  bread,  but  our  Lord's 
*'power."  The  power  of  our  Lord  was  in  the  bread. 
Therefore  the  bread  was  His  body. 

1  Exposition  of  the  Faith,  16;  P.  G.  42, 812, 813. 


106       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 


VI 

S.  Ephraim,  the  Syrian,  Poet  and  Mystic 
(a.d.  300P-373) 

Our  next  witness  brings  us  to  a  distinctly  new  source  of 
testimony  as  to  the  Church's  tradition.  He  Hved  a  long 
life  in  Mesopotamia,  just  on  the  borderland  where  the 
Roman  Empire  was  engaged  for  centuries  in  a  struggle 
against  the  Kingdom  of  Parthia.  An  oriental,  an  ascetic, 
a  mystic,  and  a  poet,  he  will  use  a  language  different  in 
some  of  its  expressions  from  any  that  we  have  heard 
before,  as  when  he  speaks  of  our  Lord  as  clothing  Himself 
w^th  bread,  but  we  shall  find,  I  am  sure,  the  same  funda- 
mental beliefs  as  in  the  Fathers  of  the  less  distant  East. 
His  writings,  all  in  Syriac,  —  we  are  distinctly  told  in 
the  Church  History  of  Theodoret  that  he  had  "not  tasted 
Greek  instruction,"  —  used  to  be  read  in  Church  after 
the  Scripture  Lessons,  according  to  S.  Jerome,  in  the 
Syriac-speaking  East.  S.  Ephraim  —  he  is  commonly 
cited  as  Ephrem  Syrus  —  had  to  resist  the  heresy  of  the 
Marcionites,  who  held  that  matter  was  essentially  evil, 
and  therefore  that  our  Lord  had  no  real  body  of  flesh 
and  blood.  Against  their  teaching  he  argues  from  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  which  they  did  receive  and  celebrate: 

"They  have  but  a  likeness  of  blood,  who  own  not  the  body 
of  Christ.  Where  is  the  true  hotly,  there  is  also  the  true  blood. 
If  because  the  body  is  defiled  and  liateful  and  loathsome,  the 
Lord  abhorreth  it,  in  that  cafce  the  cup  of  redemption  is  in  the 
house  of  devils." 

The  argument  is  that  if  the  human  body  is  a  foul  thing, 
which  our  Lord  would  not  wear,  then  He  could  not  take 
to  Himself  the  wine  of  their  own  Eucharist,  and  the  only 


THE   ASIATIC    SCHOOLS  107 

fit  place  for  a  material  sacrament  must  be  in  the  service 
of  evil  powers.  But  this,  argues  S.  Ephraim,  is  contrary 
to  the  acknowledged  facts  of  the  Eucharist.  Hear  how 
the  argument  goes  on: 

"And  how  did  He  loathe  the  body,  and  yet  clothe  Himself 
with  bread  in  the  Eucharist?  Whereas  lo!  bread  is  the  brother 
of  weak  flesh.  And  if  dumb  bread  pleases  Him,  how  much  more 
the  speaking  body."  ^ 

Our  Lord  clothes  Himself  with  bread.  Bread  is  "the 
brother  of  weak  flesh."  These  phrases  seem  to  show 
that  S.  Ephraim  felt  very  deeply  the  analogy  between  our 
Lord's  Incarnation  and  His  "Impanation,"  if  I  may  call 
it  so.  I  protest,  by  the  way,  that  "Impanation"  is  as 
good  a  word,  in  spite  of  having  been  used  most  basely 
in  some  past  times,  as  onoovcnos  was  when  taken  up  by 
the  Council  of  Nicaea,  in  spite  of  base  use,  and  formal 
condemnation  in  such  use,  beforetime. 

Dr.  Pusey  quotes  a  passage  from  the  Eleventh  Rhythm 
on  the  Nativity,  and  says  that  in  it  the  poet  speaks  of 
the  Holy  Eucharist  as  "the  Image  of  Christ"  and  as 
"shadowing  forth  Christ."  The  poet  does  speak  of  the 
Eucharist  as  "shadowing  forth  Christ,"  but  I  must 
point  out  that  the  venerable  father  who  comments  on 
him  quite  failed  to  see  what  S.  Ephraim  meant  by  "the 
image"  of  our  Lord.  By  that  phrase  he  referred  to  our 
Lord's  natural  body  of  flesh  and  blood,  and  he  distin- 
guishes it  most  particularly  from  the  eucharistic  body, 
that  bread  which  becomes  "living  bread."  Here  is  the 
passage,  which  is  cast  in  the  form  of  an  address  by  the 
Blessed  Virgin  to  our  Lord,  wherein  she  views  the  Infant 
in  the  manger,  and  yet  sees  in  vision  all  His  accomplish- 
ment in  the  life  of  the  Church  that  is  to  be: 

*  Adv.  Haeres.  Rhythm  4;    Pusey,  p.  78. 


108       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

"In  Thy  visible  form  I  see  Adam,  and  in  Thy  hidden  form 
I  see  Thy  Father  who  is  joined  with  Thee.  Am  I,  then,  the 
only  one  to  whom  Thou  hast  shown  Thy  beauty  in  two  forms? 
Thee  let  bread  shadow  forth,  and  also  the  mind;  dwell  also  in 
bread,  and  in  the  eaters  thereof.  In  secret,  and  op>enly  too, 
may  thy  Church  see  Thee,  as  well  as  Thy  Mother. 

"He  that  hateth  Thy  bread  is  like  unto  him  that  hateth  Thy 
body.  He  that  is  far  off  that  desireth  Thy  bread,  and  he  that 
is  near  that  loveth  Thine  image,  are  alike.  In  the  bread,  and 
in  the  body,  the  first  and  also  the  last  have  seen  Thee." 

Surely  the  meaning  is  clear.  The  worshippers  before 
the  altar,  who  are  "afar  oflF,"  and  see  "in  secret,"  are 
contrasted  with  the  disciples  who  surround  our  Lord  in 
His  earthly  life,  who  are  "near"  and  see  "openly." 
Both  see  our  Lord  quite  truly,  but  the  first  see  Him 
clothed  in  His  bread,  and  the  last  see  Him  in  His  "image." 
Now  to  carry  the  quotation  somewhat  farther: 

"Yet  Thy  visible  bread  is  far  more  precious  than  Thy  body; 
for  Thy  body  even  unbelievers  have  seen,  but  they  have  not 
seen  Thy  living  bread.  They  that  were  far  off  rejoiced;  their 
portion  utterly  scorns  that  of  those  that  are  near. 

"Lo!  Thy  image  is  shadowed  forth  in  the  blood  of  grapes 
on  the  bread  ,^  and  it  is  shadowed  forth  on  the  heart  with  the 
finger  of  love,  with  the  colors  of  faith.  Blessed  be  He  that  by 
the  image  of  His  truth  caused  the  graven  images  to  pass  away. " 

The  "image"  referred  to  here  is  in  every  case  our 
Lord's  natural  body.  His  "visible  bread,"  His  eucharistic 
body,  is  here  declared  to  be  far  more  precious  than  even 
that  dear  and  holy  flesh!  "Dwell  also  in  bread"  is  S. 
Ephraim's  idea  of  a  right  prayer  for  our  Lord's  eucharistic 
Presence.    The   bread   is  called  our  Lord's  body,   not 

*  In  the  Syrian  Liturgy  the  priest  used  to  dip  a  portion  of  the  con- 
secrated bread  in  the  cup,  and  sprinkle  the  rest  of  the  bread  with  it. 


THE   ASIATIC   SCHOOLS  109 

because  our  Lord's  body  is  there  from  heaven,  but  be- 
cause He  Himself  has  taken  this  "visible  bread"  to  be  a 
new  body.  What  does  S.  Ephraim  really  find  in  the 
hallowed  bread?  Let  another  passage  tell  us.  I  will 
only  say  beforehand  that  it  will  not  be  a  body  and  blood, 
but  "a  Spirit  that  cannot  be  eaten,'*  and  "a  Fire  that 
cannot  be  drunk."    These  are  the  poet's  words: 

"In  Thy  visible  vesture  there  dwelleth  a  hidden  power. 
A  little  spittle  from  Thy  mouth  became  also  a  great  miracle  of 
light  in  the  midst  of  its  clay." 

"In  Thy  bread  is  hidden  the  Spirit  that  cannot  be  eaten; 
in  Thy  wine  there  dwelleth  the  Fire  that  cannot  be  drunk.  Thy 
Spirit  in  Thy  bread  and  the  Fire  in  Thy  cup  are  distinct  miracles, 
which  our  lips  receive." 

"When  our  Lord  came  down  to  the  earth,  to  mortal  men,  He 
created  them  a  new  creation,  as  in  the  angels  He  mingled  Fire 
and  the  Spirit,  that  they  might  be  of  Fire  and  Spirit  in  a  hidden 
manner."  .  .  . 

"To  the  angels,  which  are  spiritual,  Abraham  brought  bodily 
food,  and  they  ate.  A  new  miracle  it  is,  that  our  mighty  Lord 
giveth  to  bodily  creatures  Fire  and  the  Spirit,  as  food  and 
drink." 

I  interrupt  my  quotation  here  to  ask  if  S.  Ephraim  does 
not  make  it  entirely  clear  that  to  his  mind  the  Heavenly 
Reality  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  a  purely  spiritual  force, 
not  material,  not  bodily.  "Bodily  food"  is  expressly 
contrasted  with  it.  And,  as  so  constantly  happens,  he 
makes  no  mention  of  any  presence  of  any  body  of  the 
Lord  in  the  sacrament,  except  as  he  refers  to  the  hallowed 
bread  as  being  itself  our  Lord's  body,  because  in  it  He 
dwells.     I  must  add  a  few  more  verses  from  this  poem: 

"Fire  came  down  upon  sinners  in  wrath,  and  consumed  them. 
The  fire  of  the  Merciful  cometh  down  in  bread  and  abideth. 
Instead  of  that  fire  which  devoured  men,  ye  eat  a  fire  in  bread. 


110       THE  EUCHAMSTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

and  are  made  alive.  As  fire  came  down  on  the  sacrifice  of  Elijah, 
and  consumed  it,  the  Fire  of  Mercy  hath  become  to  us  a  living 
sacrifice.  Fire  ate  up  the  oblations,  and  we,  0  Lord,  have  eaten 
Thy  Fire  in  Thy  oblation."  .  .  . 

"O  Might  liidden  in  the  veil  of  the  sanctuary!  Might  which 
the  mind  never  grasped!  It  hath  His  love  brought  down,  and 
It  descended,  and  lighted  upon  the  veil  of  the  altar  of  pro- 
pitiation. Lo!  Fire  and  Spirit  in  the  bosom  of  her  that  bore 
Thee!  Lo!  Fire  and  Spirit  in  that  river  wherein  Thou  wast 
baptized!  Fire  and  Spirit  in  owr  Baptism!  In  the  bread  and  the 
cup  is  Fire  and  the  Holy  Ghost!"  {De  Scrutin.  x.  3,  5,  7. 
Pusey,  122.) 

Again  I  note  the  habit  of  S.  Ephraim's  mind,  which 
finds  a  parallel  between  the  Incarnation,  and  the  descent 
of  our  Lord  into  the  Jordan  to  sanctify  water  for  a  sacra- 
ment from  thenceforward,  and  between  His  Presence  in 
Baptism,  and  His  Presence  in  the  Eucharist.  Another 
example  of  this  last  habit  is  found  in  De  Scrutin.,  Rhythm 
vi.  2.    (Pusey,  415.) 

"In  bread  the  Strong  One  that  cannot  be  eaten  is  eaten; 
in  strong  wine  also  is  drunk  the  Power  that  cannot  be  drunk; 
we  also  anoint  ourselves  with  oil  with  the  Power  which  cannot 
be  used  as  ointment." 

So  also  in  one  of  the  Funeral  Hymns  we  read  thus: 

"Spare  the  body  and  the  soul!  Thou  who  didst  mingle  Thy 
body  with  our  body,  and  didst  join  Thy  Spirit  with  our  spirit. 
Lo!  in  our  body  is  Thy  Baptism,  and  in  our  persons  Thy  living 
body.  In  us,  Lord,  there  is  a  portion  from  Thee;  let  us  not  be 
a  portion  for  the  fire!"     {Cant.  12.     Pusey,  416.) 

So,  too,  in  Paracn.  29  (Tom.  iii.  480,  Pusey,  420): 

"The  departed,  who  were  clothed  with  Thee,  O  Lord,  in 
Baptism,  and  ate  of  Thy  body,  and  drank  Thy  living  blood,  may 


THE   ASIATIC   SCHOOLS  111 

they  rise,  Lord,  on  the  right  hand,  and  with  the  angels,  be  filled 
with  joy  in  Eden ! " 

I  close  our  study  of  S.  Ephralm  with  three  quotations 
emphasizing  three  several  points.  The  first  shows  us  S. 
Ephraim  calling  the  wine  "our  Lord's  blood"  (sacra- 
mental) and  "the  token  of  His  blood"  (natural)  in  the 
same  breath: 

"I  have  with  me  the  token  of  Thy  blood,  a  weapon  whereat 
the  vast  mouth  of  hell,  which  hungers  and  thirsts  for  the  wicked, 
shrinks  back  affrighted.  Through  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  death 
shrank  back  from  the  Hebrews.  Through  Thy  precious  blood, 
O  Lord,  how  shall  hell  shrink  back!"  {Paraen.  3.  Tom.  iii.  386. 
Pusey,  418.) 

My  second  quotation  indicates  that  to  S.  Ephraim's 
mind  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  was  the  very  material 
out  of  which  the  body  of  our  Lord  was  made.  It  comes 
from  his  commentary  on  Ezek.  x.  2  : 

"Those  coals  again,  and  the  man  who  bringeth  them,  and 
scattereth  them  upon  the  people,  are  a  type  of  the  priest  of  God, 
through  whom  the  living  coals  of  the  life-giving  body  of  our  Lord 
are  given.  But  this,  that  another,  a  cherub,  stretched  out,  and 
placed  them  in  his  hand,  this  is  a  type  that  it  is  not  the  priest 
who  can  of  bread  make  the  body,  but  another,  who  is  the  Holy 
Spirit."     (Tom.  ii.  175.     Pusey,  123.) 

The  last  quotation  is  one  which  renews  most  strikingly 
the  parallel  of  the  miracle  of  the  Incarnation  with  the 
miracle  of  the  Eucharist: 

"The  garment,  seeing  that  it  was  the  covering  of  Thy  Human 
Nature,  and  Thy  body,  seeing  that  it  was  the  covering  of  Thy 
Divine  Nature,  coverings  twain  they  were  to  Thee,  the  garment 
and  the  body,  that  bread,  the  bread  of  life.     Who  would  not 


112       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

marvel  at  Tliy  changes  of  garment?  Lo!  the  body  covers  Thy 
glorious  fearful  brightness;  the  garment  covered  Thy  feebler 
nature;  the  bread  covereth  the  Fire  which  dwells  therein." 
{Paraen.  23.   Tom.  iii.  458.     Pusey,  124.) 


VII 

The  Great  Cappadocians:  Basil  and  tub 
Gregories 

About  A.D.  375  the  three  most  eminent  Christian 
teachers  in  Asia  INIinor  were  Basil,  Archbishop  of  Cae- 
sarea,  and  Exarch  (having  general  supervision  of  all  its 
provinces)  of  the  Roman  "Diocese"  of  Pontus;  Basil's 
friend,  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Nazianzus;  and  Basil's  brother, 
Gregory,  Bishop  of  Nyssa.  Curiously  enough,  the  chief 
of  the  three,  he  who  has  come  to  be  known  as  S.  Basil 
the  Great,  has  left  us  nothing  in  his  writings  which  throws 
any  light  on  his  opinions  as  to  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Greg- 
ory of  Nazianzus  has  left  us  very  little.  But  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  has  much  to  say,  and  in  what  he  says  he  is  the 
spokesman  for  this  commanding  group. 

What  remains  of  S.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  may  be  dealt 
with  in  few  words.  In  his  funeral  oration  on  his  sister, 
Gorgonia  (Oration  viii.  18),^  he  is  found  speaking  of  the 
consecrated  elements,  reserved,  as  "whatever  of  the 
antitypes  of  the  precious  body  or  blood  her  hand  treas- 
ured." He  speaks  of  the  clergy  as  those  "who  are  to  be 
over  the  people,  and  to  handle  the  mighty  body  of  Christ," 
and  again  as  those  "who  approach  to  the  approaching 
God"  (Oration  xxi.  7).^  It  seems  worthy  of  note  that 
in  asking  the  prayers  of  a  friend  he  says  (Ep.  ad  Amphilo- 
chium,  clxxi),^ 

»  P.  G.  35,  809.  2  P.  G.  35,  1088.  ^  p  q  37^  280.  281. 


THE   ASIATIC   SCHOOLS  113 

"Be  not  slack  in  prayer  and  pleading  for  us,  when  by  the 
word  you  draw  down  the  Word,  when  with  the  bloodless 
cutting  you  divide  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  having 
your  voice  as  a  knife." 

"Bloodless  cutting"  implies  that  in  one  sense  there 
is  no  blood  there.  Our  Lord's  natural  blood  is  not 
present  at  all.  "When  .  .  .  you  divide  the  body  and 
blood"  seems  to  imply,  even  as  "body  or  blood"  in  our 
first  extract  implied,  that  S.  Gregory  thought  of  the 
consecrated  bread  as  being  our  Lord's  body,  and  of  the 
consecrated  wine  as  being  His  blood,  in  such  sense  that 
the  body  and  blood  so  brought  to  pass  were  divided,  one 
from  the  other.  He  does  not  seem  to  have  held  the 
view,  which  so  many  moderns  regard  as  a  first  foundation 
of  orthodoxy,  that  our  Lord's  body  and  blood  are  equally 
present  in  the  bread,  and  equally  present  in  the  wine,  and 
cannot  be  supposed  to  be  divided. 

We  pass  to  the  detailed  examination  of  the  testimony 
of 

S.  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Nyssa,  a.d.  372-395 

The  key  to  S.  Gregory's  eucharistic  doctrine  is  to  be 
found  in  two  works  of  his,  —  a  sermon  on  the  Baptism  of 
Christ,  and  a  writing  called  the  Great  Catechism,  or 
Sermo  Catecheticus  Magnus.  Let  me  present  first  the 
passage  from  the  sermon  on  our  Lord's  Baptism  and  the 
Christian  sacrament  of  Baptism.  The  preacher  asks 
why  water  is  needed  as  well  as  Spirit  in  this  saving  act. 
His  answer  is  that  man  is  "not  simple,  but  compound." 
The  twofold  being  needs  a  twofold  remedy,  "for  his 
visible  body,  water,  the  sensible  element;  for  his  soul, 
which  we  cannot  see,  the  Spirit,  invisible,  invoked  by 
faith,  present  unspeakably."  S.  Gregory's  idea  of  a 
sacrament  seems  to  be  that  of  our  Catechism,  —  a  ma- 


114       THE  EUCHABISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

terial  form,  which,  continuing  itself  unchanged,  becomes 
instinct  with  a  divine  grace.  He  goes  on  to  show  by  a 
series  of  illustrations  how  commonly  God  uses  this  method, 
and  the  Eucharist  is  brought  in  as  one  of  these  illustra- 
tions, in  no  wise  distinguished  from  the  rest  as  to  this 
central  point. 

"For  this  holy  altar,  too,  by  which  we  stand,  is  stone,  ordinary 
in  its  nature,  nowise  different  from  the  other  slabs  of  stone  that 
build  our  houses,  and  adorn  our  pavements;  but  seeing  that  it 
was  consecrated  to  the  service  of  God,  and  received  the  bene- 
diction, it  is  a  holy  table,  an  altar  undefiled,  no  longer  touched 
by  the  hands  of  all,  but  of  the  priests  alone,  and  that  with 
reverence.  The  bread,  again,  is,  up  to  a  certain  time,  common 
bread,  but  when  the  mystery  consecrates  it,  it  is  called,  and  it 
becomes,  the  body  of  Christ.  So  with  the  sacramental  oil; 
so  with  the  wine." 

S.  Gregory  goes  on  to  show  how  the  priest  is  made  to 
be  another  man  by  his  ordination,  — 

"without  being  at  all  changed  in  body  or  in  form;  but,  while 
continuing  to  be  in  all  appearance  the  man  he  was  before,  being, 
by  some  unseen  power  and  grace,  transformed  (/Li£Ta/xop</)wfie£s) 
in  the  unseen  to  the  higher  state."  ^ 

A  little  later,  it  is  true,  our  saint  gives  the  further 
illustration  of  Moses'  rod : 

"When  God  willed  to  accomplish  through  it  mighty  miracles 
beyond  all  words.  He  changed  the  wood  into  a  serpent." 

But  he  thinks  of  the  Eucharist,  and  speaks  of  it,  along 
with  cases  in  which  the  material  thing  was  not  changed 
into  some  other  material  thing,  but  remained,  bearing 
new  power.  He  even  refers  to  the  oil  of  Confirmation 
between  the  bread  of  the  altar  and  the  wine  of  the  altar, 
so  much  does  it  appear  to  him  as  a  parallel  illustration  of 
»  P.  G.  46,  581. 


THE   ASL\TIC   SCHOOLS  115 

sacramental  power.  And  with  him,  as  with  other  Fathers, 
the  natural  way  of  expressing  the  relation  of  the  hallowed 
bread  to  our  Lord  Himself  is  not  to  say  that  it  enshrines 
His  body,  but  that  "it  is  called,  and  becomes,  the  body  of 
Christ." 

In  the  Great  Catechism  (XXXVII)  S.  Gregory  goes 
further.  He  there  offers  an  attempt,  which  Dr.  Pusey 
describes  (on  his  p.  180)  as  "standing  alone  in  antiquity," 
to  give  a  philosophy  of  the  eucharistic  miracle.  Bodies 
may  be  made  out  of  a  variety  of  materials,  seems  to  be 
S.  Gregory's  thought.  He  enumerates  various  foods  of 
animals  and  men,  and  declares  that  when  you  look  at  a 
man's  food,  you  are,  in  effect  (8vvaiJL€L),  looking  at  the 
bulk  of  his  body.  He  describes  our  Lord's  natural  body 
as  being  "in  effect,  bread,"  because  it  was  made  out  of 
that  common  material  of  the  food  of  men.  In  like 
manner,  he  declares  that  "if  a  person  sees  bread,  he  also, 
in  a  kind  of  way,  looks  on  a  human  body."  He  also 
speaks  of  the  bodies  of  believers  as  being  composed  of 
what  they  eat  and  drink,  which  is  partly  wine  and  bread. 
All  this  is  offered  to  show  how  our  Lord  may  have  a 
body  consisting  of  bread,  and  blood  consisting  of  wine, 
at  the  altar. 

The  passage  that  I  am  about  to  quote  is  cited  trium- 
phantly by  Roman  theologians  for  the  sake  of  a  phrase 
in  which  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  is  said  to  be  "trans- 
made"  (fxeTairoieLcdaL)  "into  the  body  of  God  the 
Word."  That  word  "transmade"  is  urged  as  implying 
a  belief  in  a  change  of  substance.  I  will  not  burden  these 
pages  with  a  labored  examination  of  that  point.  Dr. 
Pusey  shows  abundantly  (Pusey,  pp.  179-189)  that  this 
word  "transmake"  is  used  not  only  by  others  among  the 
Fathers,   but  by  S.   Gregory  himself,   of  a  number  of 


116       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

changes  which  cannot  possibly  be  thought  of  as  implying 
changed  substance,  as  of  "the  transmaking  of  Moses  to 
a  more  glorious  appearance";  of  the  goodness  of  God, 
"transmaking  him  who  receiveth  it  to  itself";  of  men, 
"transmade  in  nature  to  that  which  is  more  Divine"; 
and  even  (in  speaking  of  our  Lord  Himself),  of  "the 
change  and  transmaking  of  the  human  nature  into  the 
Divine."  In  this  very  oration  S.  Gregory  uses  the  word 
of  three  changes  besides  that  of  the  sacramental  ele- 
ments,—  of  our  own  bodies  into  our  Lord's  body;  of 
our  Lord's  natural  body  into  the  divine  dignity;  and  of 
our  Lord's  food  into  the  substance  of  His  natural  body. 
Only  one  of  these  changes  (the  last  named)  is  a  change 
of  substance,  and  even  that  change  is  in  no  way  analogous 
to  the  change  suggested  in  the  word  "Transubstantia- 
tion."     But  let  us  turn  to  the  oration  itself. 

"If  the  subsistence  of  every  body  depends  on  nourishment, 
and  this  is  eating  and  drinking,  and  in  the  case  of  our  eating 
there  is  bread,  and  in  the  case  of  our  drinking  there  is  water 
sweetened  with  wine,  and  if,  as  was  explained  at  tlie  beginning, 
the  Word  of  God,  who  is  both  God  and  the  Word,  coalesced 
with  man's  nature,  and  when  He  came  in  a  bodj'  such  as  ours, 
did  not  innovate  on  man's  physical  constitution,  so  as  to  make 
it  other  than  it  was,  but  secured  continuance  for  His  own  body 
by  the  customary  and  proper  means,  and  controlled  its  subsistence 
by  food  and  drink,  the  former  of  which  was  bread,  —  just,  then, 
as  in  the  case  of  ourselves,  as  has  been  repeatedly  said  aheady,  if 
a  person  sees  bread,  he  also  in  a  kind  of  way,  looks  on  a  human 
body,  for  by  the  bread  being  within  the  body  the  bread  becomes 
the  body,  so  also,  in  that  other  case,  the  body  into  wliich  God 
entered  by  partaking  of  the  nourishment  of  bread,  was  in  a  cer- 
tain measure  the  same  with  bread,  that  nourishment,  as  we  have 
said,  changing  itself  into  the  nature  of  tlie  body.  For  that  which 
is  peculiar  to  all  flesh  is  acknowledged  also  in  the  case  of  that 
flesh,  namely,  that  that  body,  too,  was  maintained  by  bread, 


THE   ASIATIC    SCHOOLS  117 

which  body  also  by  the  indwelling  of  God  the  Word  was  trans- 
made  to  the  dignity  of  Godhead.  Rightly,  then,  do  we  believe 
that  now  also  the  bread  which  is  consecrated  by  the  word  of 
God  is  transmade  into  the  body  of  God  the  Word.  For  that 
body  was  once  in  effect  bread,  but  has  been  consecrated  by  the 
inhabitation  of  the  Word  that  tabernacled  in  the  flesh.  There- 
fore, from  the  same  cause  as  that  by  which  the  bread  that  was 
transformed  in  that  body  was  changed  to  a  divine  potency,  a 
similar  result  takes  place  now.  For  as  in  that  case,  too,  the 
grace  of  the  Word  used  to  make  holy  the  body,  the  substance  of 
which  came  of  the  bread,  and  in  a  manner  was  itself  bread,  so 
also  in  this  case  the  bread  'is  sanctified,'  as  the  Apostle  says, 
'by  the  word  of  God  and  prayer';  not  that  it  advances  by  the 
process  of  eating  to  the  point  of  becoming  the  body  of  the  Word, 
but  it  is  at  once  transmade  into  the  body  by  means  of  the  Word, 
as  the  Word  said,  'This  is  My  body.'  .  .  .  He  bestows  these 
gifts  as  He  trauselements  the  nature  of  the  visible  thing  to  that 
immortal  thing  by  means  of  the  consecration."^ 

I  can  understand  S.  Gregory's  speculation  in  only  one 
way.  He  seems  plainly  to  have  held  that  our  Lord  takes 
the  elements  of  the  Eucharist  to  Himself,  and  makes  of 
them  a  body  and  blood  in  extension  of  His  natural  body, 
as  He  used  to  take  food  and  add  it  to  His  natural  body 
when  He  was  on  earth.  The  Word  which  formerly 
glorified  bread  transmuted  into  flesh  now  glorifies  bread 
without  first  transmuting  it  into  (literal)  flesh.  But 
He  does  make  it  to  be  truly  a  body  for  His  sacred  service. 
Only  we  are  to  observe  that  that  enlargement  of  our 
Lord's  body  which  was  accomplished,  when  He  was  on 
earth,  by  processes  natural  and  slow  is  now  accomplished 
suddenly  and  by  miracle,  the  bread  of  our  Eucharist 
being,  as  S.  Gregory  says,  "at  once  transmade  into  the 
body  by  means  of  the  Word." 

^  For  the  use  of  iitTaaTOLXit-oo)  ("transelement")  by  the  Fathers,  see 
Pusey,  pp.  195-210.    The  text  is  in  P.  G.  45,  96,  97. 


LECTURE  V 

THE  GREAT  WRITERS  BETWEEN  THE  SECOND  AND 
THIRD  GENERAL  COUNCILS:  CONSTANTINOPLE, 
A.D.   381,  EPHESUS,  A.D.   431 

A.    The  Latin  Fathers 

THE  last  quarter  of  the  fourth  century  and  the  first 
quarter  of  the  fifth  were  marked  by  the  presence  of  a 
group  of  writers  of  very  large  output  and  of  extraordinary 
power.  The  philosopher,  Augustine,  the  scholar,  Jerome, 
and  the  orator,  John  Chrysostom  (John  of  the  mouth  of 
gold),  were  enough  to  glorify  that  brief  space,  if  there  were 
no  more.  I  shall  devote  this  Lecture  to  an  examination 
of  the  testimony  of  the  two  Latin  Fathers,  Augustine  and 
Jerome.  ' 

I 

S.  Augustine,  the  Philosopher,  Bishop  of  Hippo, 
A.D.  354-430 

The  testimony  of  S.  Augustine  is  of  special  interest, 
partly  because  he  was  a  voluminous  writer,  and  a  very 
large  proportion  of  what  he  wrote  has  been  preserved  to 
our  day,  but  much  more  because  he  was  a  man  of  many- 
sided  mind.  Many  men  might  write  folios,  but  what 
they  said  on  page  after  page,  and  in  volume  after  volume, 
would  be  the  same  thing  over  and  over.  Augustine  has 
his  favorite  ideas,  which  he  repeats  frequently,  but  he 
was  very  notably  a  man  who  looked  at  things  in  many 

118 


A.D.    381-431:    LATIN    FATHERS  119 

ways.  He  was  not  in  the  habit  of  throwing  in  repeatedly 
in  his  discourses  such  phrases  as  "in  some  sense"  and 
"so  to  speak,"  but  he  very  well  might  have.  Like  most 
great  men,  he  tries  to  make  words  his  instruments  for 
expressing  ideas  outside  the  ordinary  range  of  common 
men  with  their  common  speech.  So,  most  naturally,  he 
is  sometimes  hard  to  understand,  and  sometimes  he  will 
seem  to  contradict  himself.  You  will  need  to  be  on  the 
lookout,  as  you  read  him,  to  take  his  words  in  his  way. 
Common  and  simple  ways  will  not  do.  Augustine  of 
Hippo  was  not  a  common  and  simple  man. 

We  are  dealing,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  with  the  ques- 
tion whether  our  Lord's  words,  "This  is  My  body," 
suggested  to  the  early  Christian  teachers  a  mysterious 
presence  on  the  altar  of  our  Lord's  glorified  body,  which 
is  in  heaven,  or  rather  the  making  of  the  hallowed  bread 
to  be  our  Lord's  body  in  some  new  way  and  in  some  new 
meaning.  Now  the  first  thing  that  I  shall  note  about  S. 
Augustine  is  a  negative  thing.  I  cannot  show  it  by 
quotations  short  of  spreading  before  you  all  that  we 
have  of  his  teaching  concerning  the  Holy  Eucharist.  For 
that  I  have  not  space.  I  must  ask  you  to  take  my  word 
for  it,  —  or  much  better  than  that,  search  the  Augustinian 
quotations  on  the  Eucharist  for  yourselves,  as  they  are 
given  in  Dr.  Pusey's  volume,  and  see  whether  I  say  truly, 
—  that  S.  Augustine  never,  when  he  is  speaking  of  the 
Eucharist,  refers  to  the  body  of  our  Lord  as  being  in 
heaven,  or  as  coming  down  to  the  altar,  or  as  being 
present  in  the  element  of  bread.  Some  of  you,  who  do 
not  know  Augustine's  phrases  familiarly  will  be  saying, 
"Oh!  That  must  be  impossible!"  Others,  who  do  know 
Augustine's  phrases  well,  will  say,  "That  is  not  true! 
S.  Augustine  speaks  over  and  over  of  our  eating  in  the 
Eucharist  the  bread  which  comes  down  from  heaven. 


120       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Does  not  the  Lecturer  know  that?"  Oh!  yes.  I  know 
that  patent  fact  quite  well,  but  I  must  point  out  that 
S.  Augustine  explains  "the  Bread  from  heaven"  as 
meaning  our  Lord  in  His  Person,  in  His  Divine-human 
life.  I  repeat  my  statement  that  S.  Augustine  never, 
in  all  his  many  utterances,  speaks  of  our  Lord's  body 
as  being  in  heaven,  or  coming  from  heaven,  or  as 
being  present  in  the  consecrated  bread,  when  he  is 
writing  of  the  Presence  of  our  Lord  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  It  is  from  the  modern  point  of  view  a  notable 
omission. 

A  second  point  to  be  insisted  on  in  the  examination  of 
S.  Augustine's  writings  is  this:  Augustine  is  clear  that 
something  which  is  "the  body  of  our  Lord"  in  one  sense 
is  to  be  identified  with  something  else,  which  is  "the 
body  of  our  Lord"  in  a  different  sense.  My  point  is 
that  he  identifies  the  body  of  our  Lord  received  in  the 
Eucharist  with  the  mystical  body,  the  Church.  He 
identifies  thoroughly,  as  one  and  the  same  body,  two 
bodies  which  he  certainly  did  not  regard  as  identical. 
Here  is  an  extract  from  a  sermon  for  Easter  Day : 

"I  promised  to  you  wlio  have  been  baptized  a  sermon,  in 
which  I  was  to  explain  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  table,  which 
you  have  even  now  seen,  and  of  which  you  became  partakers,  last 
night.^  Ye  ought  to  know  what  ye  have  received,  what  ye 
are  about  to  receive,  what  ye  ought  daily  to  receive.  That 
bread  which  ye  see  on  the  altar,  consecrated  by  the  word  of 
God,  is  the  body  of  Christ.  That  cup,  or  rather  what  that 
cup  holds,  consecrated  by  the  word  of  God,  is  the  blood  of 
Christ.     In  this  way  the  Lord  willed  to  impart  His  body,  and 

*  The  baptism  of  the  catechumens  had  taken  place  in  the  late  eve- 
ning of  Easter  Even,  Confirmation  being  a  part  of  the  baptismal  rites 
in  those  days,  and  had  been  followed  by  a  midnight  mass.  This  ser- 
mon was  preached  in  the  service  of  Easter  morning. 


A.D.  381-431:    LATIN    FATHERS  121 

His  blood,  which  He  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins.     If  you  have 
received  well,  you  are  that  which  you  have  received."  ^ 

"You  are  that  which  you  have  received."  This  is  a 
plain  identification  of  the  sacramental  body  and  the 
mystical  body.  The  same  teaching  appears  in  another 
sermon: 

"That  virtue  which  is  there  understood  is  unity,  that  being 
joined  to  His  body,  and  made  His  limbs,  we  may  be  that  which 
we  receive."  ^ 

In  like  vein  Augustine  speaks  in  his  Tractates  on  the 
Gospel  of  S.  John,  commenting  on  vi.  51: 

"The  faithful  know  the  body  of  Christ,  if  they  neglect  not 
to  be  the  body  of  Christ.  Let  them  become  the  body  of  Christ, 
if  they  wish  to  live  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  None  lives  by  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  but  the  body  of  Christ.  .  .  .  Wouldest  thou  then 
also  live  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ.''  Be  in  the  body  of  Christ.  For 
does  my  body  live  by  thy  spirit.''  My  body  lives  by  my  spirit, 
and  thy  body  by  thy  spirit.  The  body  of  Christ  cannot  live  but 
by  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  It  is  for  this  that  the  Apostle  Paul, 
expounding  this  bread,  says:  'One  bread,'  saith  he;  'we,  being 
many  are  one  body.' " ' 

It  seems  to  me  a  point  worth  observing  that  Augustine's 
thought  dwelt  on  the  idea  that  it  was  indwelling  spirit 
that  made  matter  to  be  a  body.  My  spirit  makes  my 
body  to  be  my  body.  At  least,  he  could  have  understood 
the  claim,  if  he  had  heard  one  saying,  "What  makes  the 
bread  of  our  altars  to  be  our  Lord's  body  is  the  indwelling 
of  His  Spirit,  even  as  in  His  natural  flesh." 

Returning  to  the  words  of  S.  Augustine  himself,  I  take 

1  Sermon  227.     Pusey,  528,  529;   Stone,  95;   P.  L.  38,  1099. 

«  Sermon  57.     Stone,  95;  P.  L.  38,  589. 

'  Tractate  xxvi.  13.     Pusey,  511;    P.  L.  35,  1612,  1613. 


122       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

a  passage  from  his  book  On  the  City  of  God.  He  is  arguing 
against  persons  who  minimize  in  various  ways  what  he 
holds  to  be  the  teaching  of  Scripture  as  to  Eternal  Punish- 
ment: 

"There  are  others  who  promise  deliverance  from  eternal 
punishment,  not  indeed  to  all  men,  but  only  to  those  who  have 
been  washed  with  Christ's  baptism,  who  have  become  partakers 
of  His  body,  howsoever  they  may  have  lived,  in  whatsoever 
heresy  or  impiety,  on  account  of  what  Jesus  saith:  'This  is  the 
bread  wliich  came  down  from  heaven,  that  a  man  may  eat 
thereof,  and  not  die.  ...  If  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall 
live  forever.'  .  .  .  There  are  also  those  who  do  not  promise 
this  even  to  all  who  have  the  sacrament  of  Clu"ist  and  of  His 
body,^  but  to  Catholics  onlj',  because  they  have  eaten  the  body 
of  Christ,  not  sacramentally  only,  but  in  reality  (non  solo  Sa- 
cramento, sed  re  ipsa),  being  incorporated  in  that  very  body  of 
Has,  of  which  the  Apostle  says, '  We,  being  many,  are  one  bread  and 
one  body,'  so  that  although  they  have  afterwards  lapsed  into 
some  heresy,  or  even  into  heathen  idolatry,  yet  simply  because 
in  the  body  of  Christ,  that  is,  in  the  Catholic  Church,  they  have 
received  the  Baptism  of  Christ,  and  eaten  the  body  of  Christ, 
they  shall  not  die  forever."  .  .  .  "He  who  is  in  the  unity  of 
that  body,  that  is,  in  the  fast  hold  Lcompagel  of  the  members 
of  Christ,  of  wliich  body  the  faithful  are  wont  to  receive  the 
sacrament  from  the  altar  in  their  communions,  he  is  truly  to 
be  said  to  eat  the  body  of  Christ  and  to  drink  the  blood  of 
Christ."  2 

CaUing  the  Church  "the  body  of  our  Lord"  is  figurative 
language,  as  all  agree.  S.  Augustine  found  a  tremendous 
reality  conveyed  in  that  figurative  language,  and  he  uses 

'  This  seems  to  mean  the  sacrament  of  Baptism,  regarded  as  making 
men  members  of  our  Lord's  body,  and  so  in  the  former  sentence,  those 
"who  have  been  washed,  who  have  become  partakers  of  His  body," 
are  one  group  of  people,  not  two.  It  would  seem  that  to  Augustine 
to  be  baptized  was  "to  cat  the  flesh  of  Christ  and  to  drink  His  blood." 

»  De  Civitate  xxi.  19,  20,  25.    Pusey,  532,  533.    P.  L.  41,  733,  734.  741. 


A.D.   381-431:    LATIN    FATHERS  12S 

such  figurative  language  about  a  "body"  of  our  Lord 
quite  interchangeably  with  our  Lord's  eucharistic  word, 
"body."  Nay,  I  observe  that  he  speaks  of  Catholics  as 
eating  the  body  of  our  Lord,  "not  sacramentally  only, 
but  in  reality,"  when  they  are  incorporated  in  the  body 
mystical.  Now  S.  Augustine  is  absolutely  clear  that 
those  who  receive  the  Holy  Communion  "unworthily," 
do  receive  our  Lord's  body,  —  to  their  condemnation  and 
hurt.  Apply  this  key,  that  S.  Augustine  regarded  our 
Lord's  eucharistic  language  as  figurative,  as  truly  as  S. 
Paul's  language  about  the  body,  the  Church,  and  all 
comes  clear.  Our  Lord  calls  the  hallowed  bread  His 
body,  because  He  has  taken  it  as  the  vehicle  and  instru- 
ment of  His  Divine-human  life.  The  wicked  man  really 
receives  this  body,  with  its  indwelling  life.  He  receives 
a  figure,  which  is  not  a  mere  figure,  but  a  great  power. 
And  yet  he  receives  sacramentally  only,  but  not  in  reality y 
that  gift  (of  union  with  our  Lord  in  His  glorified  body  in 
heaven)  which  this  sacramental  body,  a  great  reality  in 
itself,  was  intended  to  convey. 

Certainly  Augustine  holds  our  Lord's  eucharistic 
language  to  be  figurative  language.  Not  only  does  our 
saint  contrast  what  is  done  "sacramentally"  with  what 
is  done  "in  reality."  He  speaks  of  our  Lord  as  commend- 
ing and  delivering  to  His  disciples  "the  figure  of  His  own 
body  and  blood."  (Enarrations  on  the  Psalms,  iii.  1.)^  He 
speaks  of  our  Lord  as  hesitating  "not  to  say,  'This  is  My 
body,'  when  He  gave  a  sign  of  His  body."  (Contra 
Adimantum,  12.  §  3.)^  Again,  he  says,  "These  things  are 
therefore  called  sacraments,  because  in  them  one  thing 
is  seen,  another  is  understood.  What  is  seen  has  a 
bodily  form;  what  is  understood  has  a  spiritual  fruit." 
(Sermon  272.)  ^ 

1  P.  L.  36,  73.  2  P.  L.  42,  144.  2  P.  L.  38,  1247. 


124       THE  EUCHARISITC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Of  course,  it  will  be  said  here  by  some  devout  modern 
students  that  the  thing  seen  is  bread,  and  the  thing 
understood  is  our  Lord's  glorified  body.  But  let  me  ask 
them  to  observe  how  different  the  language  of  Augustine 
is  from  theirs.  They  always  distinguish  the  bread  from 
our  Lord's  body.  They  do  not  really,  when  they  are 
thinking  their  own  thoughts,  and  using  their  natural 
language,  call  the  eucharistic  bread  "our  Lord's  body." 
They  say  that  the  bread  is  a  figure  of  our  Lord's  body 
natural,  and  that  the  body  is  'present  in  the  bread.  S. 
Augustine,  like  all  the  rest  of  the  Fathers,  did  call  the 
consecrated  bread  our  Lord's  body,  and  did  believe  that 
our  Lord  had  made  it  so,  it  being  truly  the  body  of  our 
Lord  in  a  new  and  figurative  sense,  which  yet  included 
a  tremendous  reality.  That  is  the  thought  which  enables 
Augustine  to  dwell  so  much  on  the  fact  (as  he  held  it  to 
be)  that  Judas  received  our  Lord's  body,  and  yet  to 
write  such  a  passage  as  this  from  the  Treatise  On  the  City 
of  God: 

"These  persons  (Christians  who  live  in  habitual  sin)  are  not 
to  be  said  to  eat  the  body  of  Christ,  for  they  cannot  even  be 
reckoned  among  His  meml)ers.  For  not  to  mention  other 
matters,  they  cannot  be  at  once  the  members  of  Christ  and  the 
members  of  a  harlot.  In  fine.  He  Himself,  when  He  says,  'He 
that  eateth  My  flesh,  and  drinketh  My  blood,  abideth  in  Me, 
and  I  in  Him,'  shows  what  it  is,  not  by  way  of  sacrament,  but 
in  reality  (non  sacramento  tcnus,  sed  re  vera),  to  eat  His  body, 
and  drink  His  blood;  for  tliis  is  to  abide  in  Christ,  that  He  may 
also  abide  in  us.  For  He  hath  so  said  this,  as  if  He  said,  'He 
that  abidetli  in  Me,  and  in  whom  I  abide  not,  let  him  not  say 
or  think  that  he  eateth  My  flesh,  or  drinketh  My  blood.'"  ^ 

The  bread  and  wine  are  called  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  in  a  figure,  because  He  enters  into  them,  and 
»  De  Civiiatc.  xxi.  25  end;    Puscy,  533,  531;    P.  L.  \\,  742. 


A.D.    381-431:    LATIN   FATHERS  125 

makes  them  a  power  for  certain  ends.  This  figure  is  in 
itself  a  great  reahty,  filled  with  an  awful  power.  That 
reality  all  communicants  receive,  for  good  or  for  evil. 
But  really  eating  the  flesh,  and  drinking  the  blood  of 
the  Lord,  or  in  other  words,  truly  carrying  out  his  figure, 
according  to  its  intended  action,  is  to  be  said  only  of 
those  who  turn  that  great  power  to  an  appointed  use,  of 
blessing  and  newness  of  life. 

I  know  no  other  explanation  than  that  which  I  have 
given,  which  can  clear  Augustine  of  the  charge  of  self- 
contradiction.  He  who  thus  tells  us  that  the  wicked 
"are  not  to  be  said  to  eat  the  body  of  the  Lord,"  did  use 
that  very  form  of  speech  over  and  over.  He  said  of 
Judas,  that  he  "received  Christ's  body"  ^  {Tractate  on  S. 
John  Ixii.  3.  Pusey,  516),  and  again,  "They  ate  the  bread 
which  was  the  Lord:  he,  the  bread  of  the  Lord,  against 
the  Lord.  They  ate  life;  he  punishment."  (Tractate 
on  S.  John,  lix.  1.)  Again,  he  speaks  of  certain  offenders, 
who  "fear  not,  with  the  mark  of  the  devil,  to  receive  the 
body  of  Christ."  ^  Nothing  could  make  it  more  clear 
that  Augustine  regarded  the  eucharistic  elements  them- 
selves, received  by  good  and  bad  alike  as  worthy  to  be 
called  by  great  names,  because  they  had  received  the 
indwelling  of  a  great  power.  It  is  equally  clear  that 
Augustine  regards  these  elements  as  fulfilling  the  promise 
implied  in  such  great  names  to  those  only  who  fulfilled 
certain  conditions.     In  other  words,  there  was  a  great 

^  That  is,  he  says  of  Judas  receiving  the  sop,  that  he  "did  not  at  that 
time  receive  Christ's  body,"  and  goes  on  to  show  that  that  receiving 
happened  earUer.  The  next  quotation  is  ambiguous.  It  refers  cer- 
tainly to  the  receiving  of  the  sop.  Probably  it  refers  to  the  communion 
of  Judas  also.  The  passages  are  in  P.  L.  35,  1802,  and  35,  1796,  re- 
spectively. 

-  Ep.  245,  2,  Ad  Possidium.    Pusey,  508;    P.  L.  33,  1061. 


126       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

reality  there,  but  the  names  which  it  secured  to  the 
consecrated  elements  were  figurative  names,  which  might 
or  might  not,  make  their  promise  good. 

What  did  S.  Augustine  hold  to  be  the  Inner  Reality 
of  the  sacrament?  Certainly,  our  Lord  Himself.  And 
it  may  be  added,  not  our  Lord  in  His  glorified  body,  but 
our  Lord  in  His  glorious  Person.  I  have  said  that  Augus- 
tine nowhere  speaks  of  our  Lord's  body  as  coming  from 
heaven.  He  does  speak  often  of  our  feeding  on  bread 
from  heaven.  But  He  invariably  refers  that  phrase  to 
our  Lord  personally,  and  not  to  our  Lord's  body.  He 
speaks  several  times  of  our  feeding  on  "the  bread  of 
angels,"  but  he  explains  that  phrase  as  referring  to  our 
Lord  in  His  Divine  Nature.  He  was  the  bread  of  angels, 
Augustine  says,  before  His  Incarnation.  He  could  be- 
come the  bread  of  men  only  by  the  way  of  Incarnation. 
Here  is  a  passage  from  a  sermon  on  Psalm  34  (in  the 
Vulgate,  33) :  ^ 

"In  His  own  body  and  blood  He  willed  our  health  to  be. 
But  whereby  commended  He  His  own  body  and  blood.'  By 
His  own  humility.  For  unless  He  were  Immble,  neither  could 
this  be  eaten,  nor  that  drunk.  Consider  His  high  estate:  'In 
the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and 
the  Word  was  God.'  Behold!  tlic  food  is  from  everlasting, 
but  of  it  eat  the  angels,  of  it  eat  the  heavenly  spirits,  and  eating, 
they  are  filled.  And  yet  remainetli  that  whole  which  satisfieth 
them,  and  maketh  them  glad.  [So  far  the  subject  is  our  Lord's 
Person  in  His  Divine  Nature,  exclusively.]  But  what  man 
could  be  capable  of  that  food.'*  How  could  his  heart  be  made 
fit  enough  for  that  food.''  Tlierefore  it  behooved  that  table  to 
become  milk,  and  so  to  come  even  to  babes.  But  how  doth  food 
become  milk?  How  is  food  changed  into  milk,  except  it  is 
passed  through  flesh?     For  the  mother  docs  this  thing:    What 

2  Scrm.  i.  6.     Puscy,  517-519;    P.  L.  36,  303. 


A.D.    381-431:    LATIN    FATHERS  127 

the  mother  eats,  that  the  infant  eats,  but  because  the  infant 
is  less  fit  to  feed  on  bread,  the  same  bread  the  mother  incarnates, 
and  through  humihty  of  her  own  breast,  and  the  juice  of  milk, 
of  that  very  food  feeds  the  infant.  How,  then,  did  the  Wisdom 
of  God  feed  us  with  that  same  bread?  'The  Word  was  made 
flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us. '  See,  then,  humility,  in  the  fact  that 
man  ate  the  bread  of  angels,  as  it  is  written,  'He  gave  them  of 
the  bread  of  heaven;  man  did  eat  angels'  food';  that  is,  that 
Word,  by  which  the  angels  live  from  everlasting,  which  is  equal 
to  the  Father,  did  man  eat;  because  'being  in  the  form  of  God 
He  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,'  by  that  (form) 
are  the  angels  filled.  But  He  'made  Himself  of  no  reputation,' 
that  man  might  eat  angels'  food,  'and  took  upon  Him  the  form 
of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,  and  being 
found  in  fasliion  as  a  man.  He  humbled  Himself,  and  became 
obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross,'  that  so  from 
His  cross  might  be  commended  to  us  the  body  and  the  blood 
of  the  Lord  for  a  new  sacrifice." 

Again,  in  the  Traetates  on  S.  John  (xxvi.  20),  we  have 
the  same  teaching: 

"This  is  the  bread  which  cometh  down  from  heaven,  that  by 
eating  Him  we  may  live,  seeing  we  cannot  have  eternal  life  of 
ourselves.  .  .  .  Even  they  who  eat  Christ  shall  certainly  die 
temporally,  but  they  shall  live  for  ever,  because  Christ  is  eternal 
life."  1 

j     The  teaching  is  continued  in  the  next  Tractate  (xxvii.  1) :  ^ 

**He  explained  the  mode  of  this  bestowal  and  gift  of  His,  in 
what  manner  He  gave  His  flesh  to  eat,  saying, '  He  that  eateth  My 
flesh,  and  drinketh  My  blood,  dwelleth  in  Me,  and  I  in  him.' 
The  proof  that  a  man  has  eaten  and  drunk  is  this,  if  he  abides 
and  is  abode  in,  if  he  dwells  and  is  dwelt  in,  if  he  cleaves  so  as 
not  to  be  abandoned.  This,  then.  He  has  taught  us,  and  ad- 
monishes us  in  mystical  words,  to  be  in  His  body,  among  His 

1  Pusey,  513;    P.  L.  35,  1615.  2  Pusey,  513;    P.  L.  35,  1616. 


128       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

members,  under  Himself  as  Head,  eating  His  flesh,  not  abandon- 
ing our  unity  with  Him." 

Pursuing  this  line  of  teaching,  our  saint  adds  (in  Tractate 
xlv.  9,  quoted  in  Pusey,  514-515)  an  assertion  which 
may  startle  modern  hearers.  He  says  that  the  worthies 
of  the  Old  Covenant  received  the  same  blessing  that  we 
do,  that  is,  union  with  our  Lord.  I  venture  to  doubt 
the  correctness  of  S.  Augustine's  teaching  in  this  particular 
point;  but  I  value  his  words  here  as  showing  very  strik- 
ingly what  he  held  the  Heavenly  Part  in  the  sacrament 
to  be. 

"Was  not  the  same  faith  theirs  by  whom  these  signs  were 
employed,  and  by  whom  were  foretold  in  prophecy  the  things 
which  we  believe?  Certainly  it  was.  But  they  believed  that 
they  were  yet  to  come;  and  we,  that  they  have  come.  In  like 
manner  does  he  also  say,  'They  all  drank  the  same  spiritual 
drink.'  'The  same  spiritual,'  for  it  was  not  the  same  material 
(drink).  For  what  was  it  they  drank .'^  'For  they  drank  of  the 
spiritual  Rock  that  followed  them,  and  that  Rock  was  Christ.* 
See,  then,  how  that  while  the  faith  remained  the  same,  the  signs 
were  varied.  The  rock  was  Christ;  to  us  that  is  Christ  which 
is  placed  on  the  altar  of  God.  And  they,  as  a  great  sacramental 
sign  of  the  same  Christ,  drank  the  water  flowing  from  the  rock; 
what  we  drink  is  known,  is  known  to  the  fg.ithful.  If  one's 
thoughts  turn  to  the  visible  form,  the  thing  is  different;  if  to  the 
meaning  tliat  addresses  the  understanding,  they  *  drank  the  same 
spiritual  drink.'"  ^ 

I  set  it  down  confidently  that  S.  Augustine  never  any- 
where contrasts  an  earthly  sacrament  with  a  heavenly 
body,  but  always  with  a  heavenly  Person,  or  a  heavenly 
Life.  I^t  me  give  one  more  extract  to  this  eflFect,  and 
this  time,  from  Sermon  131. ^ 

»  P.  L.  35, 1723. 

«  Pusey,  527;   Stone,  91,  92.    P.  L.  38,  729. 


A.D.    381-431:    LATIN    FATHERS  129 

"What,  then,  does  He  answer?  '  Does  this  make  you  stumble? 
What  then  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  ascending  where  He 
was  before?'  What  does  He  mean  by  'Does  this  make  you 
stumble?'  *Do  you  think  that  of  this  body  of  Mine,  which  you 
see,  I  shall  make  pieces,  and  cut  up  My  limbs,  and  give  them  to 
you?  '  What  does  He  mean  by  'If  then  you  shall  see  the  Son  of 
Man  ascending  where  He  was  before?'  Certainly,  He  who 
could  ascend  whole,  could  not  be  consumed.  Therefore  He  both 
gave  to  us  healthful  nourishment  from  His  body  and  blood,  and 
in  a  few  words  solved  so  great  a  question  about  His  wholeness. 
Therefore  let  those  who  eat,  eat,  and  let  those  who  drink,  drink; 
let  them  'hunger  and  thirst';  let  them  eat  life,  let  them  drink 
life.  To  eat  this  is  to  be  nourished;  but  so  are  you  nourished 
that  the  source  of  your  nourishment  does  not  fail.  To  drink 
this,  what  is  it  but  to  live?  Eat  life,  drink  life;  you  will  have 
life,  and  yet  the  life  is  whole.  Then  this  will  happ>en,  that  is, 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  will  be  life  to  each  one,  if  what  is 
visibly  received  in  the  sacrament  is  spiritually  eaten,  and  spirit- 
ually drunk,  in  very  truth." 

In  the  quotation  given  above  from  the  Tractates  on  S. 
John  (xxvii.  1),  we  heard  S.  Augustine  saying,  "He 
explained  first  the  mode  of  this  bestowal  and  gift  of  His, 
.  .  .  when  He  said,  'He  that  eateth  My  flesh  and  drinketh 
My  blood,  dwelleth  in  Me  and  I  in  Him.'"  Perhaps  you 
could  not  see  that  those  words  of  our  Lord  really  con- 
stituted an  explanation  of  those  other  great  words,  "This 
is  My  body,"  "This  is  My  blood."  S.  Augustine  makes 
it  clear  that  he,  for  his  part,  did  find  there  an  "explana- 
tion," and  one  which  satisfied  his  deeply  philosophical 
mind.  To  him  those  words  of  our  Lord  seem  to  have 
meant,  "This  bread  is  now  a  means  by  which  I  can 
extend  the  reach  of  My  human  life,  and  bring  it  to  bear 
upon  My  people,  feeding  them  from  Myself,  and  uniting 
them  with  Myself."  "This  wine  is  now  a  means  whereby 
I  may  commimicate  Myself  to  My  people  as  a  quickening 


130       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Force,  animating  My  body  mystical,  My  Church,  even 
as  My  natural  blood,  now  flowing  in  My  veins,  animates 
My  natural  body."  With  such  an  understanding  of 
our  Lord's  words,  S.  Augustine  finds  naturally  in  a  phrase 
that  defines  eating  our  Lord's  flesh  and  drinking  His 
blood  as  amounting  to  a  mutual  indwelling  of  our  Lord 
and  His  people,  an  "explanation"  of  our  Lord's  mysterious 
saying. 

Let  me  present,  in  this  connection,  an  example  of  this 
great  bishop,  and  clear-headed  teacher,  setting  himself 
to  explain  the  mystery  of  the  Blessed  Eucharist  to  be- 
ginners in  the  Clu-istian  Religion,  so  far,  that  is,  as  it 
can  be  explained  at  all.  The  most  noteworthy  thing 
about  this  offered  explanation  is,  that  it  does  not  follow 
the  line  that  a  modern  Roman  theologian  would  follow, 
nor  the  line  that  a  modern  High  Anglican  w^ould  fol- 
low, in  the  very  least,  and  the  next  most  noteworthy  thing 
about  it  is  that  neither  of  these  modern  theologians  can  eas- 
ily find  any  "explanation"  here  at  all.  The  passage  which 
I  am  to  quote  is  from  a  sermon  to  children  (Sermon 
cclxxii.  Quoted  by  Stone,  p.  95,  and,  in  part,  by  Pusey, 
p.  530.)  I  ask  you  to  notice  that  their  bishop  has  nothing 
to  say  to  them  about  our  Lord's  body  being  able  to  be  in 
heaven  and  on  the  altar  at  the  same  time,  being  present 
among  us  after  the  manner  of  a  spirit.  If  he  had  thought 
that,  I  know  no  reason  why  he  should  not  have  said  it, 
but  every  reason  why  he  should,  when  his  particular 
object  was  to  explain  our  Lord's  eucharistic  Presence  just 
as  far  as  it  could  possibly  be  explained.  But  if  you 
listen  to  his  explanation,  which  he  did  give,  with  that 
other  thought  in  your  mind,  —  that  our  Lord  must  have 
meant  by  "This  is  My  body,"  "This  also  is  My  body  in 
some  sense,  another  body,  which  I  have  besides  My 
body  natural,"  then  I  think  that  you  can  see  that  the 


A.D.    381-431;   LATIN    FATHERS  131 

bishop's  words  do  constitute  something  of  an  explanation. 
Here,  at  any  rate  is  what  he  says: 

"This  which  you  see  on  the  altar  of  God,  you  saw  last  night, 
also;  but  what  it  was,  what  it  meant,  of  how  great  a  thing  it 
contained  the  sacrament,  you  have  not  yet  heard.  What  you 
see,  then,  is  bread  and  a  cup,  which  even  your  eyes  declare  to 
you;  but  as  to  that  in  which  your  faith  demands  instruction,  the 
bread  is  the  body  of  Christ,  the  cup,  the  blood  of  Christ.  .  ,  . 
Such  a  thought  as  this  may  occur  in  some  one's  mind :  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  —  we  know  whence  He  received  flesh,  of  the 
Virgin  Mary.  As  a  babe  He  was  nourished,  suckled,  grew. 
.  .  .  He  was  slain.  .  .  .  He  rose  again.  .  .  .  He  ascended 
into  heaven.  .  .  .  There  He  is  now  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of 
the  Father.  How  is  the  bread  His  body?  How  is  the  cup,  or 
that  which  the  cup  contains.  His  blood?  Brethren,  these 
things  are  called  sacraments  for  this  reason,  that  in  them  one 
thing  is  seen,  another  thing  is  understood.  That  which  is  seen 
has  bodily  appearance  (speciem);  that  which  is  understood  has 
spiritual  fruit.  If  you  wish  to  understand  the  body  of  Christ, 
hear  the  Apostle,  speaking  to  the  faithful,  'Now  ye  are  the  body 
and  members  of  Clu-ist.'  If  you,  then,  are  the  body  and  mem- 
bers of  Christ,  your  mystery  is  laid  on  the  Table  of  the  Lord, 
your  mystery  you  receive.  To  that  which  you  are  you  answer 
Amen,  and  in  answering  you  assent.  You  hear  the  words, 
'The  body  of  Christ,'  and  you  answer  'Amen.'  Be  a  member  of 
the  body  of  Christ,  that  the  'Amen'  may  be  true."  ^ 

Now  if  S.  Augustine  had  believed  that  the  bread  of 
the  Eucharist  was  (1)  not  our  Lord's  body  at  all,  but 
(2)  called  so,  because  it  was  a  picture  of  our  Lord's  body, 
being  also  (3)  an  appointed  sign  and  pledge  of  the  presence 
of  our  Lord's  heavenly  body,  he  would  have  said  so 
plainly.  If,  again,  these  catechumens  were  asking, 
"How  can  our  Lord's  heavenly  body  be  here  on  the 
altar?"  to  tell  them  that  in  a  sacrament  one  thing  is 
1  P.  L.  36,  1246-1248. 


132       THE  EUCIIARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

seen,  and  another  understood,  would  have  been  simply 
to  re-state  the  difficulty  with  which  their  minds  were 
occupied,  and  not  in  the  least  to  explain  it.  But  once 
more  let  me  substitute  my  pre-supposition,  which  I 
suppose  to  have  been  S.  Augustine's,  and  that  of  every- 
body else  in  his  time.  These  people,  who  looked  to  him 
for  instruction,  were  not  asking  "How  can  our  Lord's 
body,  which  is  in  heaven,  be  here  on  the  altar,  too?" 
They  were  asking,  "IIow,  since  we  know  that  our  Lord's 
body  is  in  heaven,  and  not  here,  can  this  bread  of  His 
sacrament  be  His  body,  too?"  Then  Augustine's  answer 
will  make  sense.  And  its  sense  will  be  something  like 
this.  "The  words  used  in  defining  the  grace  of  a  sacra- 
ment are  used  in  a  special,  not  an  ordinary,  way.  When 
bread  is  called  'the  body  of  the  Lord,'  and  wine  *the 
blood  of  the  Lord,'  you  know  that  these  hallowed  elements 
have  suffered  a  change,  and  have  in  them  some  mysterious 
potency,  some  spiritual  fruit,  beyond  their  outward 
seeming.  Would  you  ask  how  bread  can  have  the  po- 
tency of  a  'body'  for  our  Lord,  bethink  yourselves  of 
how  He  teaches  us  to  call  the  Church  His  'body'  because 
He  lives  in  it  and  w^orks  through  it."  To  tell  them  that 
in  these  sacramental  phrases  words  are  not  used  literally, 
and  to  point  them  to  another  well-known  and  well-loved 
use  of  one  of  these  words  in  a  figurative  way,  is  to  give 
them  at  least  the  beginning  of  an  explanation  that  ex- 
plains. I  venture  to  say  that  an  explanation  of  Augus- 
tine's ouTi  meaning  as  the  preacher  of  this  sermon  must 
be  looked  for  along  the  line  which  I  have  just  indicated. 
I  keep  insisting  that  to  S.  Augustine  and  his  hearers 
the  natural  suggestion  of  "This  is  My  body,"  was  "This 
is  a  body  which  is  Mine,  and  is  in  addition  to  that  in 
which  I  stand  before  you."  I  want  to  give  some  further 
passages  which  seem  to  me  to  establish  that  that  was  the 


A.D.   381-431:   LATIN   FATHERS  133 

attitude  of  Augustine's  mind.  I  begin  with  two  which 
can  be  easily  explained  otherwise,  but  which  will  gather 
force  from  those  which  follow  after. 

In  that  sermon  on  Psalm  34  (Sermon  i.  10),  which  I 
have  already  quoted,  I  find  this: 

"Christ  was  carried  in  His  own  hands,  when  delivering  His 
own  body,  He  said,  'This  is  My  body.'  For  that  body  He  carried 
in  His  own  hands."  ^ 

It  will  be  said  by  some  that  my  emphasizing  "that 
body"  does  not  truly  represent  the  preacher's  mind. 
Then  I  will  quote  from  his  second  sermon  (Sermon  ii,  2) 
on  this  same  psalm,  a  passage  which  comes  nearer  to 
saying  clearly  what  I  understand  him  to  mean: 

"When  He  delivered  His  own  body  and  His  own  blood,  He 
took  in  His  hands  what  the  faithful  know,  and  in  a  certain 
fashion  \iquodam  modo'\  He  carried  Himself,  when  He  said,  'This 
is  My  body.' "  2 

If  it  be  held  that  still  I  have  not  proved  that  S.  Augus- 
tine thought  of  that  eucharistic  body  as  "another  body," 
I  will  call  him  as  a  witness  to  his  own  belief  that  Christians 
do  not  eat  our  Lord's  body  natural.  Thus  in  the  first 
sermon  on  Psalm  34  (Sermon  i.  8;  Pusey,  519)  we  find 
this: 

"Recollect  the  Gospel!  When  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  spake 
concerning  His  body.  He  said  'Except  a  man  eat  My  flesh,  and 
drink  My  blood,  he  shall  have  no  life  in  him.  For  My  flesh  is 
meat  indeed,  and  My  blood  is  drink  indeed.'  And  His  disciples 
who  followed  Him  feared,  and  were  shocked  at  His  discourse; 
and  understanding  it  not,  they  thought  that  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  said  some  hard  thing,  as  if  they  were  to  eat  His  flesh, 
and  drink  His  blood,  which  they  saw;  and  could  not  endure 
it,  saying,  'How  is  it.?'"^ 

»  Stone,  82;    P.  L.  36,  306.  2  P.  L.  36.  308.  ^  p  i  35,  305. 


134       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Of  course,  it  will  be  urged  by  some  that  when  S.  Augus- 
tine implied  that,  of  course,  our  Lord's  followers  were 
not  to  eat  His  flesh,  and  drink  His  blood,  which  they  saw, 
he  only  intended  to  say  that  they  were  not  to  eat  of  that 
body  as  they  saw  it,  that  is,  in  its  natural  state.  But  it 
seems  to  me  that  this  is  to  charge  a  great  saint  and  great 
teacher  with  using  words  somewhat  carelessly  and 
clumsily.  If  he  had  meant  that  other  thing  it  would 
have  been  quite  as  easy  to  say  so.  Two  more  brief 
extracts  will  make  it  absolutely  sure,  I  think,  that  S. 
Augustine  did  not  regard  the  eucharistic  body  of  our 
Lord  as  identical  with  His  body  natural  in  any  wise. 
We  have  heard  Augustine  representing  our  Lord  as 
"carrying  HimseK  in  His  own  hands,  in  a  cert aiji  fashion." 
We  shall  find  that  cautious  phrase  coming  out  in  one  of 
the  most  famous  of  Augustinian  sayings.  It  comes  from 
Epistle  xcviii.  9.^ 

"If  the  sacraments  had  not  any  likeness  to  those  things  of 
which  they  are  sacraments,  they  would  not  be  sacraments  at 
all.  And  from  this  likeness  for  the  most  part  also  they  receive 
the  names  of  the  things  themselves.  As  then,  after  a  certain 
fashion  [^secundum  quemdam  modum~\  the  sacrament  of  the  body 
of  Christ  is  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the  sacrament  of  the  blood 
of  Christ  is  the  blood  of  Christ,  so  the  sacrament  of  faith  is 
faith." 

I  think  that  if  S.  Augustine  had  been  writing  in  our 
modern  English  speech  he  would  have  preferred  the  word 
"analogy"  to  the  word  "likeness."  The  resemblance 
that  he  has  in  his  mind  is  a  "resemblance  of  ratios." 
That  is  exactly  what  I  am  claiming.  He  seems  to  have 
regarded  the  eucharistic  bread  as  being  to  our  Lord  in 
one  sphere  what  His  body  of  flesh  and  bones  had  been 

»  Pusey.  507;    Stone,  05;    P.  /...  33,  3G4. 


A.D.    381-431:    LATIN    FATHERS  135 

to  Him  in  another  sphere.     Because  of  that  analogy, 
it  is  proper  to  give  it  that  name  of  "body,"  too. 

My  second  brief  passage  is  from  the  Treatise  on  Christian 
Doctrine  (iii.  16;  Stone,  65).  Here  is  Augustine's  rule 
for  declaring  what  is  to  be  taken  as  figurative,  and  what 
as  literal,  in  Holy  Scripture : 

"If  the  sentence  is  one  of  command,  either  forbidding  a 
crime  or  vice,  or  enjoining  an  act  of  prudence  or  benevolence, 
it  is  not  figurative.  If,  however,  it  seems  to  enjoin  a  crime  or 
vice,  or  to  forbid  an  act  of  prudence  or  benevolence,  it  is  figur- 
ative. 'Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,'  says  Christ, 
'and  drink  His  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.'  This  seems  to 
enjoin  a  crime  or  a  vice;  therefore  it  is  a  figure,  enjoining  that  we 
should  have  a  share  in  the  sufferings  of  our  Lord,  and  a  sweet 
and  profitable  memory  of  the  fact  that  His  flesh  was  wounded 
and  crucified  for  us. "  ^ 

Now,  certainly,  S.  Augustine  believed  a  great  deal 
more  concerning  the  sacrament  than  these  words  of  his 
would  suggest  to  a  modern  reader.  But  when  we  read 
those  passages  in  which  he  expresses  that  "more,"  we 
must  never  forget  that  in  this  one  point  he  has  put  him- 
self on  record  unalterably.  The  words,  "This  is  My 
body,"  "This  is  My  blood,"  are  figurative  expressions, 
not  literal,  and  his  distinction  between  "figurative" 
and  "literal"  is  exactly  the  same  which  we  make  to-day. 

I  wish  to  close  my  examination  of  the  teaching  of  S. 
Augustine  with  a  long  quotation,  in  which  our  Lord  will 
be  represented  as  saying,  "You  are  not  to  eat  that  body 
which  you  see,  nor  to  drink  that  blood  which  they  who 
shall  crucify  Me  will  pour  forth."  But  before  I  proceed 
to  that  closing  testimony  as  to  Augustine's  non-literalness, 
I  must  make  the  most  distinct  acknowledgment  that 
this  same  great  teacher  regards  the  sacramental  body  of 
1  P.  L.  34,  745. 


136       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

our  Lord  as  something  to  be  identified  with  His  body 
natural,  and  does,  therefore,  with  an  appearance  of 
flattest  self-contradiction,  assert  over  and  over  that  men 
do  eat  and  drink  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,  which 
He  wore  here  on  earth.  I  must  remind  you  of  the  distinc- 
tion which  I  drew  in  my  first  Lecture  and  again  in  my 
fourth  Lecture  between  "identified"  and  "identical." 
Augustine  distinctly  declines  to  acknowledge  the  sacra- 
mental body  of  our  Lord  as  identical  with  His  natural 
body,  and  yet  he  identifies  the  two  bodies  in  some  sense. 
I  note  further  that  this  identification  is  always  an  identi- 
fication with  the  body  of  our  Lord's  earthly  life,  and 
never  with  the  body  as  glorified.  The  latter  identifica- 
tion could  have  been  made  just  as  well,  on  the  same 
theological  foundation.  Only  our  saint's  thoughts  never 
seem  to  turn  that  way.  He  thinks  rather  of  the  body 
on  the  altar  as  in  some  sense  one  with  the  body  which 
suffered  and  was  rejected  here  on  earth.  Here  are  the 
passages : 

"Those  men,  indeed,  [the  Jews]  saw  Christ  dying  by  their 
own  villany,  and  yet  they  believed  Christ  pardoning  their  vil- 
lanies.  Until  they  drank  the  blood  they  shed,  they  despaired 
of  their  own  salvation. "  ^ 

"What  murderer  should  despair  if  one  was  restored  to  hope, 
by  whom  even  Christ  was  murdered?  There  believed  of  them 
many.  They  were  presented  with  Christ's  blood  as  a  gift,  that 
they  might  drink  it  for  their  deliverance,  rather  than  be  held 
guilty  of  shedding  it.     Who  can  despair.?"     (Ibid,  xxxviii,  7.) 

"That  blood  which  in  their  rage  they  shed,  in  their  faith  they 
drank. "     (Ibid.  xl.  2.) 

But  from  these  examples  of  one  of  Augustine's  habits 
of  mind,  identifying,  in  a  fashion,  the  "blood"  of  the 

»  Tractate  on  S.  John,  xxxi.  9;  Pusey.  514;  P.  L.  35,  1640.  The  next 
two  passages  arc  on  col.  1678  and  col.  1684. 


A.D.    381-431:    LATIN    FATHERS  137 

Eucharist  with  the  blood  of  our  Lord's  natural  body, 
I  turn  back  to  my  promised  quotation,  drawn  from  the 
Enarrations  on  the  Psalms  (xcix.  [in  the  Vulgate,  xcviii.] 
8).^  Augustine  is  here  commenting  on  the  words  in  the 
fifth  verse  of  the  Psalm,  which  we  read  in  our  Prayer 
Books  as  "fall  down  before  His  footstool,  for  He  is  holy." 
The  King  James  Version  gives,  "worship  at  His  foot- 
stool." Augustine  read  in  his  Latin  Bible,  odor  ate 
scahellum  pedum  ejus;  quoniam  sanctus  est,  —  "worship 
His  footstool;  for  He  is  holy."  The  difficulty  arose  at 
once  to  Latin  readers,  how  could  men  be  bidden  to  worship 
a  created  thing?  Augustine  explains  by  referring  to  the 
saying,  "Earth  is  My  footstool"  (Is.  Ixvi.  1;  Acts  vii.  49), 
and  then  to  the  fact  that  man  is  said  to  have  been  made 
out  "of  the  dust  of  the  ground"  (Gen.  ii.  7).  Earth  is 
made  man.  Our  Lord  takes  man's  nature  upon  Him. 
Then  earth,  which  is  God's  footstool,  is  found  to  be  part 
of  the  vesture  of  the  Eternal  Word.  God's  footstool  is 
made  worshipful,  when  of  it  is  made  the  flesh  of  Christ. 
Here  follows  the  quotation: 

"Because  He  walked  here  in  flesh  itself,  and  gave  flesh  itself ' 
to  us  to  eat  for  our  salvation,  and  no  one  eats  that  flesh,  unless 
he  has  first  worshipped,  a  way  has  been  found  in  which  such  a 
footstool  of  the  Lord  may  be  worshipped,  and  in  which  we  not 
only  do  not  sin  if  we  worship,  but  should  sin  if  we  did  not  wor- 
ship. But  doth  the  flesh  give  life?  Our  Lord  Himself,  when  He 
was  speaking  in  praise  of  this  same  earth,  said,  'It  is  the  Spirit 

»  Pusey,  521-523;   Stone  108-109;    P.  L.  37,  1264. 

*  The  translator  for  the  Oxford  Library  of  the  Fathers  here  renders 
"that  very  flesh"  as  if  S.  Augustine  had  written  "illam  carnem  ipsam." 
Dr.  Darwell  Stone's  rendering,  "He  walked  here  in  the  flesh  itself,  and 
gave  the  flesh  itself"  is,  of  course,  perfectly  possible,  but  the  rendering 
above  seems  nearer  to  Augustine's  sequence  of  thought.  Augustine 
did  at  times  identify  the  eucharistic  body  and  the  historic  body,  as  we 
have  seen.    He  is  not  making  that  point  here. 


138       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

that  quickeneth;  the  flesh  profitelh  nothing. '  Therefore  when 
thou  bowest  thyself  down  prostrate  before  the  earth,  look  not 
unto  the  earth;  look  not  as  if  unto  the  earth,  but  unto  that  Holy 
One  whose  footstool  it  is  that  thou  dost  worship.  Wherefore 
He  hath  added  here  also,  'Worship  His  footstool,  for  He  is  holy.* 
Who  is  holy?  He  in  whose  honor  thou  dost  worship  His  foot- 
stool. And  when  thou  worshippest  Him,  see  that  thou  do  not 
in  thought  remain  in  the  flesh,  unquickened  by  the  Spirit;  for 
He  saith,  'It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth 
nothing.'  But  when  our  Lord  counselled  this,  He  had  been 
speaking  of  His  own  flesh,  and  had  said,  'Except  a  man  eat  My 
flesh,  he  shall  have  no  life  in  him.'  Some  disciples  of  His,  about 
seventy,^  were  offended,  and  said,  'This  is  a  hard  saying.  Who 
can  hear  it.'''  And  they  went  back,  and  walked  no  more  with 
Him.  It  seemed  to  them  hard  that  He  said,  'Except  ye  eat 
the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.'  They 
received  it  foolishly,  they  thought  of  it  carnally,  they  even 
imagined  that  the  Lord  would  cut  off  parts  from  His  body,  and 
give  to  them;  and  they  said,  'This  is  a  hard  saying.'  They  were 
hard,  not  the  saying;  for  unless  they  had  been  hard,  and  not 
meek,  they  would  have  said  to  themselves,  'He  does  not  say  this 
without  reason,  but  there  must  be  some  latent  mystery  therein;* 
they  would  have  remained  with  Him,  softened,  not  hard,  and 
would  have  learne<l  that  from  Him  wliich  they  did  learn  who 
remained  after  the  others  had  departed.  For  when,  on  their 
departure,  twelve  disciples  had  remained,  these  remaining  fol- 
lowers suggested  to  Him,  as  if  in  grief  for  the  death  of  the  former, 
that  these  were  offended  by  His  words,  and  turned  back.  But 
He  instructed  them,  and  saith  unto  them,  'It  is  the  Spirit  that 
quickeneth;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing.  The  words  that  I 
have  spoken  unto  you,  they  are  Spirit,  and  they  are  life.  Under- 
stand spiritually  what  I  have  said:  you  are  not  to  eat  this  body 
which  you  see,  nor  drink  that  blood  which  they  ivho  shall  crucify  Me 

*  This  is  a  curious  example  of  exegesis  by  the  way  of  inference.  Our 
Lord's  disciples  left  Him  so  largely  that  he  asked  the  Twelve  if  they  were 
going  too.  Those  who  had  gone  already  must,  then,  have  been  the 
next  most  intimate  group,  "  the  seventy  "  ! 


A.D.    381-431:   LATIN   FATHERS  139 

vdll  pour  forth.  I  have  delivered  unto  you  a  certain  mystery. 
Spiritually  understood,  it  will  quicken.  Although  it  is  needful 
that  this  be  visibly  celebrated,  yet  it  must  be  spiritually  under- 
stood.' 'Oh!  magnify  the  Lord  our  God;  and  worship  His 
footstool;  for  He  is  holy.'" 

I  might  multiply  quotations,  but  I  forbear.  I  close 
with  two  claims.  I  claim  that  S.  Augustine  continually 
uses  such  phrases  as  my  understanding  of  his  eucharistic 
belief  calls  for.  You  may  explain  every  one  of  them  so 
as  to  satisfy  yourself  entirely  that  it  will  bear  another 
interpretation,  and  can  be  made  to  fit  with  another  habit 
of  speech.  It  remains  that  it  is  his  habit  to  use  such 
words  and  phrases  as  with  my  general  view  of  the  patristic 
teaching  I  should  expect.  I  claim,  secondly,  that  the 
language  which  some  modern  theorists  find  most  natural 
is  language  which  S.  Augustine  never  uses  at  all. 


II 

The  Testimony  of  S.  Jerome,  the  Traveller 
(a.d.  346P-420) 

The  learned  scholar,  Jerome,  is  exceptional  among  the 
Fathers  of  the  Church  for  the  wide  range  of  his  associa- 
tions with  men  as  well  as  for  the  largeness  of  his  studies. 
Born  in  the  Roman  province  of  Pannonia  (east  of  the 
northern  part  of  the  Adriatic  Sea)  he  studied  at  Rome, 
in  Gaul,  in  Asia  Minor,  at  Antioch,  at  Alexandria.  In 
later  life  he  had  a  few  years  at  Rome  in  the  commanding 
position  of  secretary  to  the  Bishop,  Damasus,  and  then 
a  much  longer  career  as  head  of  a  group  of  religious 
houses  at  Bethlehem.  No  man  of  his  day  knew  better 
what  Christian  thought  was,  no  man  was  quicker  to 
detect  differences  of  thought  among  students,  than  this 


140       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Jerome,  whose  almost  ecumenical  experience  and  ob- 
servation I  have  tried  to  sum  up  in  a  phrase  by  calling 
him  "Jerome,  the  Traveller."  Because  of  this  extraordi- 
nary largeness  of  experience  he  represents  much  more 
than  himself.  If  it  be  suggested  that  that  is  true  of 
almost  any  Christian  scholar,  I  will  say  that,  much  more 
than  most  other  Christian  writers,  S.  Jerome  represents 
more  than  himself.  That  fact  of  his  life  would  certainly 
tend  to  save  him  from  putting  forth  peculiar,  individual, 
and  novel  opinions  and  teachings.  If  S.  Jerome  intro- 
duces us  to  an  exceptional  word,  it  will  be  particularly 
likely  that  his  exceptional  way  of  speaking  will  yet  repre- 
sent most  justly,  if  the  subject  be  one  of  the  subjects 
near  to  the  Church's  heart,  and  always  prominent  in  the 
Church's  thought,  what  the  Church  had  been  thinking 
in  regard  to  that  same  subject  for  three  hundred  years. 
And  in  connection  with  this  great  subject  of  the  Eucharist, 
S.  Jerome  does  introduce  us  to  a  new  phrase.  He  speaks 
over  and  over  of  "making"  the  body  of  our  Lord  in  the 
sacrament. 

This  phrase  ought  to  be  startling  to  theologians  of 
the  modern  pre-possession.  Our  Lord's  glorified  body  in 
heaven  needs  not  to  be  made,  nor  can  be.  Our  Lord's 
body  in  which  He  stood  before  the  Apostles,  when  He 
consecrated  His  first  Eucharist,  needed  not  to  be  made, 
nor  could  be.  But  according  to  the  view  that  I  have 
been  pressing,  the  making  of  the  eucharistic  bread  to  be 
our  Lord's  body  does  include  and  imply  the  making  of  a 
new  body.  That  idea,  and  that  only,  can  account 
reasonably,  and  without  straining  of  human  speech,  for 
such  an  expression  as  that  the  Priest  makes  {conficit) 
the  body  of  Christ.  I  shall  begin  my  quotations  from  S. 
Jerome  with  one  in  which  he  may  give  his  answer  —  I 
think  that  he  does  give  a  clear  answer  —  to  the  question 


A.D.   381-431:    LATIN   FATHERS  141 

whether,  in  his  thoughts  about  the  sacrament  of  the 
altar,  our  Lord  is  understood  to  have  another  body 
besides  His  natural  body.  Jerome  is  here  commenting 
on  Eph.  i.  7,  "In  whom  we  have  redemption  through 
His  blood,"  and  he  is  led  to  compare  some  legendary 
heathen  deliverers  of  their  people  with  our  Lord,  the 
Saviour  of  a  whole  world  by  His  blood-shedding.  Then 
he  goes  on  thus: 

"But  the  blood  and  flesh  of  Christ  are  understood  in  two  ways, 
either  that  spiritual  and  divine  (flesh),  of  which  He  said  Himself, 
'My  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  My  blood  is  drink  indeed,'  and 
'Except  ye  eat  My  flesh,  and  drink  My  blood,  ye  shall  not  have 
eternal  hfe,'  or  the  flesh  and  blood  of  which  the  one  was  crucified, 
and  the  other  was  shed  by  the  soldier's  spear.  According  to  this 
distinction  there  is  a  difference  of  blood  and  flesh  to  be  under- 
stood in  the  case  of  His  saints  as  well,  so  that  there  is  one  flesh 
which  is  to  see  the  salvation  of  God,  and  another  flesh  and  blood 
which  cannot  possess  the  Kingdom  of  God."  ^ 

Now  when  Jerome  approaches  this  great  subject  with 
the  idea  that  the  flesh  and  blood  of  our  Lord  are  to  be 
understood  in  two  ways,  that  two  distinct  realities  may 
be  called  by  these  great  names,  one  "flesh  and  blood" 
being  spiritual  and  another  literal,  it  should  be  no  surprise 
to  find  him  going  on  to  such  phrases  as 

"Wine  is  consecrated  into  the  blood  of  Christ,"  ^ 

and  again, 

"Far  be  it  from  me  to  say  anything  offensive  of  these  persons 
[the  clergy],  seeing  that  they,  succeeding  to  the  Apostolic  office, 
do  with  consecrated  lips  make  the  body  of  Christ,  and  by  their 
act  [in  administering  Baptism]  we  are  Christians,"  ^ 

1  Stone,  97,  98;    Pusey,  482;  P.  L.  26,  481. 

2  Com.  on  Gal.  v.  19;    Pusey,  582;  P.  L.  26,  445. 

'  Eyistola  xiv.,  ad  Heliodorum ;  Pusey,  582;    P.  L.  22,  352. 


142       TIIE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

and  again,  when  commenting  on  the  robes  of  the  Jewish 
High  Priest,  and  their  Christian  meaning, 

"A  Pontiflf  and  Bishop,  ready  to  oflFer  sacrifices  for  the  people, 
a  mediator  between  men  and  God,  and  making  with  consecrated 
Hps  the  flesh  of  the  Lamb  [^carries  Agni  sacro  ore  conficiens'], 
because  the  holy  oil  of  Christ  his  God  is  ufK)n  liim,"  ^ 

and  again,  when  rebuking  the  pride  of  the  seven  deacons 
of  the  city  of  Rome, 

"What  ails  the  minister  of  tables  and  widows,  that  he  swells 
and  lifts  himself  up  above  those  [the  presbyters]  at  whose 
prayers  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  brought  into  being."  ' 

We  have  seen  that  S.  Jerome  distinguishes  two  kinds 
of  "flesh  and  blood"  of  our  Lord,  one  which  is  (literally) 
flesh  and  blood,  and  one  w^hich  is  bread  and  wine.  How 
utterly  he  identifies  the  eucharistic  bread  w  ith  the  eucha- 
ristic  body  may  be  seen  in  sundry  passages  of  his  writings. 
I  take  first  his  comment  on  the  phrase  of  the  prophet 
Malachi,  "Ye  offer  polluted  bread  upon  Mine  altar." 

"We  pollute  bread,  that  is,  the  body  of  Christ,  when,  being 
unworthy,  we  approach  the  altar,  and,  being  impure,  drink  pure 
blood." 3 

In  like  manner  we  have  in  his  Enarrationes  Hehraicae  on 
Genesis  xiv.  18  (Pusey,  478)  the  phrase,  "offering  bread 
and  wine,  that  is,  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  * 
And  in  his  Commentary  on  Ezekiel  xliii.  (Pusey,  479) 
he  quotes  from  S.  Paul's  words  to  the  Corinthians,  "Let 
a  man  prove  himself;  and  so  let  him  eat  of  the  bread,  and 

»  Ep.  Ixiv.  5,  Ad  Fabiolam  •  Pusey,  47G;    P.  L.  ii,  611. 

*  Ep.  cxlvi..  Ad  Evangelum :    Pusey,  476;    P.  L.  ii,  1193. 
»  Com.  on  Malachi  i.  7;  Pusey,  481;    P.  L.  25,  1624. 

*  P.  L.  23,  1011. 


A.D.    381-431:    LATIN    FATHERS  143 

drink  of  the  cup"  (1  Cor.  xi.  28),  and  makes  a  striking 
substitution,  as  of  equivalent  meaning,  — 

"Whence  the  Apostle  says:  'Let  a  man  prove  his  own  self, 
and  so  let  him  approach  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.'"  ^ 

I  will  add  one  more  such  passage,  this  time  from  his 
Commentary  on  Isaiah  (Is.  Ixii.  9;   Pusey,  472): 

"This  is  the  wheat,  and  this  the  wine,  of  which  none  shall  eat, 
save  those  who  praise  the  Lord,  and  none  shall  drink,  except  in 
His  holy  courts,  of  which  the  Lord  said  in  His  passion,  'Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  no  more  drink  of  this  fruit  of  the 
vine,  until  I  drink  it  new  in  the  Kingdom  of  My  Father,'  which 
words  are  partly  fulfilled  in  the  Church.  .  .  .  Wheat,  also, 
whereof  heavenly  bread  is  made,  that  is,  whereof  the  Lord 
speaketh:  'My  flesh  is  meat  indeed,'  and  again  of  wine,  'My 
blood  is  drink  indeed.'"  ^ 

Certainly  to  Jerome  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  altar 
are  themselves,  very  really  and  unquestionably,  our 
Lord's  body  and  blood.  I  may  add  that  he  has  the 
same  thought  on  which  Augustine  was  to  dwell  so  habit- 
ually, that  we  Christians  are  ourselves  "the  body  of  the 
Lord,"  equally  really,  equally  unquestionably.  In  his 
commentary,  if  it  be  really  his,  on  1  Cor.  xi.  (a  passage 
not  quoted  by  Dr.  Pusey)  he  quotes  S.  John  vi.  56,  and 
draws  out  a  moving  consequence: 

'"He  abides  in  Me,  and  I  in  liim.'  Whence  every  one  that 
either  eats  Christ's  body  or  drinks  Christ's  blood  should  bethink 
himself  of  what  he  is,  that  he  do  no  wrong  to  Him  whose  body 
he  has  been  made  to  be."  ^ 

Does  S.  Jerome  ever  speak  of  our  Lord's  heavenly 
body  as  present  in  the  sacrament?  I  venture  to  assert 
that  he  does  not.    But  I  will  quote  two  passages,  which 

1  P.  L.  25,  436.  «  P.  L.  24,  63.  »  P.  L.  30,  783. 


144       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

may  seem  to  carry  that  meaning  in  the  eyes  of  some 
theologians  of  the  modern  pre-supposition,  as  a  matter 
of  presenting  evidence  fairly. 
The  first  is  from  his  Letter  to  Hedihia  {Ep.  cxx.) :  ^ 

"If,  then,  the  'bread  which  came  down  from  heaven,*  is 
the  Lord's  body,  and  the  wine  which  He  gave  to  His  disciples 
is  the  blood  of  the  new  covenant,"  etc. 

We  have  seen  that  to  S.  Augustine  "the  bread  which 
comes  down  from  heaven"  is  always  our  Lord  in  His 
Divine-human  Person.  It  is  never  His  heavenly  body. 
The  bread  which  He  gives  us  from  the  altar  may  be 
described  as  "bread  from  heaven,"  because  He  who  is 
the  true  "  bread  from  heaven"  dwells  in  it,  without  neces- 
sarily supposing  the  presence  of  His  heavenly  body. 

The  other  passage  is  from  the  commentary  on  S.  Matt. 
XX vi,,  and  runs  thus: 

"After  that  the  typical  Passover  was  finished,  and  He  had 
eaten  the  flesh  of  the  lamb  with  His  apostles,  He  takes  bread, 
which  strengthens  the  heart  of  man,  and  passes  to  the  true 
paschal  sacrament;  that  as  Melchizedek,  priest  of  the  Most 
High  God,  had  done  in  profiguration  of  Him,  He  might  do  in 
present  act  in  the  verity  of  His  own  body  and  blood."  ^ 

Of  course,  if  one  starts  with  the  assumption  that  our 
Lord  can  have  but  one  body,  this  is  decisive.  That  body 
is  in  the  sacrament,  and  is  there  in  its  verity.  But  I 
protest  that  that  assumption  is  not  a  sound  one.  I 
protest  further  that  the  view  of  the  eucharistic  Presence 
which  I  am  here  offering  as  that  of  the  ancient  Church 
regards  the  eucharistic  body  of  our  Lord  as  quite  as 
much  a  "verity,"  and  quite  as  much  "His  own,"  as  the 
blessed  body  in  the  heavenly  places.     S.  Jerome  himself 

»  Pusey,  472;    P.  L.  22,  986.  ^  Pusey,  482;    P.  L.  26,  202,  203. 


A.D.    381-431:    LATIN    FATHERS  145 

has  distinguished  for  us  two  meanings  of  such  words  as 
"the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  Lord,"  one  spiritual,  and  one 
literal.  He  would  not  have  allowed  any  man  to  tell  him 
that  when  he  said  "spiritual"  he  must  be  meaning 
"unreal." 


LECTURE  VI 

THE  GREAT  WRITERS  BETWEEN  THE  SECOND 
AND  THIRD  GENERAL  COUNCILS 

'B.   The  Greek  Fathers 


S.  John  Chrysostom,  Pre-eminent  Orator 
(a.d.  347-407) 

WHEN  we  approach  the  testimony  of  S.  Chrysos- 
tom, we  find  ourselves  in  a  different  atmosphere 
from  any  that  we  have  known  before.  To  some 
minds  the  change  of  atmosphere  will  represent  a  change 
of  theology.  I  think  that  that  is  a  mistake.  Great 
orators  and  great  poets  take  up  the  common  material  of 
thought  as  they  find  it  around  them  in  their  day,  and 
make  new  atmospheres  for  men.  Sometimes  they  make 
the  world  seem  a  different  place  to  men.  In  a  sense, 
then,  they  may  be  said  to  think  new  thoughts.  But 
most  often,  and  most  largely,  they  press  upon  men  what 
men  were  already  possessed  of,  only  they  present  it  with 
a  new  vividness  and  a  new  ardor.  Old  views  seen  with 
a  new  vision  are  their  gift  to  the  duller  world  around 
them.  With  the  orator,  especially,  whose  business  is  to 
persuade  men  to  new  action,  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
that  he  have  a  common  ground  with  his  hearers,  a  founda- 
tion of  a  common  thought.  An  innovator  cannot  be  an 
orator.  You  may  think  that  you  know  of  many  ex- 
amples to  disprove  that  statement.     But  think  again! 

146 


A.D.    381-431:   GREEK  FATHERS  147 

No  man  who  seems  to  you  an  innovator  will  carry  you  far 
with  him  as  an  orator.  The  orator  who  really  moves 
men  must  talk  to  them  of  things  which  they  already 
believe. 

But  the  orator  has  his  element  of  newness.  He  strains 
language  to  the  uttermost  to  work  on  the  emotions  of  his 
hearers.  The  poet  is  less  bound  than  the  orator  to  saying 
only  what  men  already  think,  or  are  all  ready  to  think. 
Indeed,  the  poet  may  be  a  prophet,  bringing  men  visions 
altogether  new  to  them.  He  will  not  get  a  hearing 
readily,  if  he  does  bring  them  such  new  visions.  But  so 
far  as  the  poet  presents  old  thoughts,  he  will  strain 
language,  if  he  be  a  great  poet,  to  make  it  hold  a  greater 
depth  and  height  of  thought.  I  think  that  S.  Augustine 
shows  more  of  that  quality,  of  making  language  serve  as 
an  instrument  of  deepening  and  heightening  thought, 
than  our  great  S.  John  of  Constantinople.  It  is  intensity 
of  feeling,  rather  than  newness  of  thinking,  that  marks 
the  orator  of  the  mouth  of  gold.  But  certainly  he  strains 
language.  Every  reader  of  S.  Chrysostom  must  see 
that.  I  will  begin  my  quotations  with  two  examples  of 
the  Impassioned  orator.  Afterward  we  will  consider 
the  elements  of  his  reasoned  theology.  I  take  the  first 
of  these  extracts  from  the  treatise  on  the  Priesthood.* 

"When  thou  seest  the  Lord  sacrificed,  and  laid  upon  the  altar, 
and  the  priest  standing  and  praying  over  the  victim,  and  all 
[the  people]  reddened  with  that  precious  blood,  canst  thou 
then  think  that  thou  art  still  among  men,  and  standing  upon  the 
earth?  Art  thou  not,  on  the  contrary,  straightway  translated 
to  heaven,  and  dost  thou  not  cast  out  every  carnal  thought  from 
thy  soul,  and  with  disembodied  spirit  and  pure  reason  con- 
template the  things  of  heaven?  Oh!  what  a  marvel!  Oh! 
what  love  of  God  to  man!     He  who  sitteth  on  high  with  the 

*  De  Sacerdoiio,  iii.  4;  Pusey,  545;  P.  G.  48,  641. 


148       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Father  is  at  that  hour  held  in  the  hands  of  all,  and  gives  Himself 
to  those  who  are  willing  to  embrace  and  grasp  Him.  .  .  . 
There  stands  the  priest,  not  calling  down  fire  from  heaven,  but 
the  Holy  Spirit;  and  he  makes  prolonged  supphcation,  not  that 
some  flame  sent  down  from  on  liigh  may  consume  the  offering, 
but  that  grace  descending  on  the  sacrifice  may  hereby  enlighten 
the  souls  of  all,  and  render  them  more  refulgent  tlian  silver 
purified  by  fire." 

Some  of  this  is  very  unliteral,  certainly.  Yet  even  in 
this  rhapsody,  I  ask  you  to  observe,  our  saint  does  not 
represent  our  Lord's  body  as  coming  from  heaven.  He 
describes  the  "inward  part"  of  the  sacrament  as  "grace" 
simply.  If  he  had  seen  with  the  eyes  of  his  vivid  faith 
the  body  on  the  heavenly  throne  coming  to  be  present 
on  the  altar,  would  he  have  failed  to  rhapsodize  on  a 
point  so  obviously  suggestive  to  the  orator's  instinct  for 
thrilling  effects  .f* 

I  take  another  example  of  rhapsody,  in  which  the  same 
opportunity  is  missed  again,  amid  much  of  straining  for 
effect,  from  the  Homilies  on  S.  Matthew. 

"How  many  now  say,  *I  would  wish  to  see  His  form,  the 
mark,  His  clothes.  His  shoes.'  Lo!  thou  seest  Him,  thou 
touchest  Him,  thou  eatest  Him.  And  thou  indeed  desirest  to 
see  His  clothes,  but  He  giveth  Himself  to  thee,  not  to  see  only, 
but  also  to  touch,  and  eat,  and  receive  within  thee.  .  .  . 
Consider,  how  indignant  thou  art  against  the  traitor,  against 
them  that  crucified  Him.  Look,  therefore,  lest  thou  also  thy- 
self become  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  They 
slaughtered  the  all-holy  body,  but  thou  after  such  great  benefits 
receivest  it  in  a  filthy  soul.  For  neither  was  it  enough  for  Him 
to  be  made  man,  to  be  smitten  and  slaughtered,  but  He  also 
commingleth  Himself  with  us,  and  not  by  faith  only,  but  also 
in  very  deed  maketh  us  His  body.  What,  tlicn,  ought  not  he 
to  exceed  in  purity,  tliat  hath  the  benefit  of  this  sacrifice,  than 
what  sunbeam  should  not  that  hand  be  more  white  which  is  to 


A.D.    381-431:    GREEK    FATHERS  149 

sever  this  flesh,  the  mouth  that  is  filled  with  spiritual  fire,  the 
tongue  that  is  reddened  by  that  most  awful  blood?  Consider 
with  what  sort  of  honor  thou  wast  honored,  of  what  sort  of  table 
thou  art  partaking.  That  which  when  angels  behold,  they 
tremble,  and  dare  not  so  much  as  to  look  up  at  it  without  awe 
on  account  of  the  brightness  that  cometh  thence,  with  this  we 
are  fed,  with  this  we  are  commingled,  and  we  are  made  one  body 
and  one  flesh  with  Christ."  ^ 

I  have  given  an  example  of  Chrysostom  the  orator;  I 
turn  to  Chrysostoni  the  theologian.  He  has  a  theology 
underlying  all  his  rhetoric,  and  I  think  that  it  is  not 
obscure.  He  is  no  Virtualist.  As  we  have  seen  in  the 
last  extract,  he  regards  the  sacraments  as  working  their 
great  effects,  "not  by  faith  only,  but  in  very  deed."  No 
one  can  surpass  S.  John  Chrysostom  in  warning  men  that 
sacraments  received  amiss  do  no  good,  but  rather  harm. 
But  he  holds  that  they  do  in  every  case  something.  They 
are  powers  from  God.  Further,  like  the  Fathers  before 
him,  S.  John  Chrysostom  holds  that  the  bread  and  wine 
of  the  Eucharist  are  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord. 
He  does  not  say  that  they  form  a  shrine  for  our  Lord's 
body  and  blood,  and  therefore  bear  the  names  of  those 
greater  things.  No !  He  represents  the  material  elements 
of  the  sacrament  as  being  the  material  also  of  our  Lord's 
sacramental  body  and  blood.  I  give  two  extracts  from 
the  Homilies  on  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  to 
show  that  Chrysostom  regarded  the  bread  as  our  Lord's 
body,  and  our  Lord's  (sacramental)  body  as  actually 
broken  in  the  Eucharist: 

"  'The  bread  which  we  break  is  it  not  a  communion  of  the  body 
of  Christ?'     Wherefore  said  He  not  'the  participation'?     Be- 
cause he  intended  to  express  something  more,  and  to  point  out 
how  close  was  the  union,  in  that  we  communicate  not  only  by 
»  Horn.  Ixxxii.  4,  5;    Pusey,  570-572;    P.  G.  58,  743,  744. 


150       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

participating  and  partaking,  but  also  by  being  united.  For  as 
that  body  is  united  to  Christ,  so  also  are  we  united  to  Him  by 
this  bread. 

But  why  adds  he  also,  *whieh  we  break?'  For  although  in 
the  Eucharist  one  may  see  this  done,  yet  on  the  cross  not  so. 
For,  'A  bone  of  Him,'  saith  one,  'shall  not  be  broken.'  But  that 
which  He  suffered  not  on  the  cross,  this  He  suffers  in  the  oblation 
for  thy  sake,  and  submits  to  be  broken,  that  He  may  fill  all 
men.  .  .  . 

For  what  is  the  bread.'  The  body  of  Christ.  And  what 
do  they  become  who  partake  of  it?  The  body  of  Christ:  not 
many  bodies,  but  one  body.  For  as  the  bread  consisting  of  many 
grains  is  made  one,  so  that  the  grains  nowhere  appear,  —  they 
exist,  indeed,  but  their  diflFerence  is  not  seen  by  reason  of  their 
conjunction,  —  so  are  we  conjoined  both  with  each  other  and 
with  Christ,  there  not  being  one  body  for  thee,  and  another  body 
for  thy  neighbor  to  be  nourished  by,  but  one  body  for  all."  ^ 

"Do  not  cut  thyself  off  from  thy  neighbor,  since  Christ  for 
His  part  gave  equally  to  all,  saying,  'Take,  eat.'  He  gave  BUs 
body  equally,  but  dost  not  thou  give  so  much  as  the  common 
bread  equally?  Yea,  it  was  indeed  broken  for  all  alike,  and 
became  the  body  for  all." 

We  have  seen  in  the  former  of  the  above  extracts  a 
reference  to  the  undoubted  fact  that  while  our  Lord  em- 
bodies Himself  in  many  men  and  women,  His  members, 
yet  His  body  is  not  many,  but  one.  Correspondingly, 
our  Lord's  body  in  many  Eucharists  is  one.  Wherever 
He  embodies  Himself,  and  however  He  may  embody 
Himself,  whether  in  His  natural  flesh,  or  in  the  bread  and 
wine  of  the  Eucharist,  or  in  thousands  of  disciples  who 
have  received  His  Baptism,  and  so  have  "put  on  Christ," 
all  His  embodiments  make  up  but  one  body  together. 
Because  we  are  in  Him,  according  to  S.  Paul's  doctrine, 

1  Eom.  in  1  Cor.  xxiv;  Pusey,  580;  P.  0.  61,  199.  Next  passage, 
P.  G.  61.  ii9. 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK   FATHERS  151 

we  are  in  the  body  that  is  enthroned  in  heaven,  —  our 
"life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God."  Chrysostom  felt  that 
oneness  of  our  Lord's  body  deeply.  I  give  one  extract 
(from  his  Homilies  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews),  to 
illustrate  that  conviction  of  his,  and  then  I  shall  go  on 
to  some  consequences  that  come  from  it  in  his  thought 
and  speech. 

"We  always  oflfer  the  same  One  (t6v  AMv),  not  one  sheep 
now,  and  tomorrow  another,  but  always  the  same  thing 
(rd  ain-6),  SO  that  the  sacrifice  is  one.  And  yet,  by  this  reasoning, 
since  the  offering  is  made  in  many  places,  are  there  many  Christs? 
But  Christ  is  one  everywhere,  being  complete  here  and  complete 
there  also,  one  body.  As,  then,  while  offered  in  many  places. 
He  is  one  body,  and  not  many  bodies,  so  also  He  is  one  sacrifice."  ^ 

Starting  with  the  idea  that  all  our  Lord's  embodiments 
are  so  many  forms  of  one  body,  Chrysostom  naturally 
identifies  the  sacramental  body  of  our  Lord  with  the 
body  of  His  earthly  life,  and  even  with  His  glorified  body 
in  heaven.  In  speaking  of  the  theology  of  S.  Augustine 
(p.  136)  I  pointed  out  that  that  great  man  identified  the 
eucharistic  body  with  the  body  of  our  Lord's  earthly 
life,  but  never  with  the  body  in  heaven.  I  said  then  that 
the  latter  identification  might  perfectly  well  have  been 
made  also,  on  Augustine's  principles.  I  will  now  add 
that  the  fact  that  we  meet  with  no  such  identification  till 
we  find  it  in  the  passionate  oratory  of  Chrysostom, 
nearly  four  hundred  years  after  the  Church's  beginning 
of  thought  and  feeling,  is  a  very  striking  fact  indeed. 
My  own  way  of  accounting  for  that  really  remarkable 
slowness  of  development  would  be  this:  the  Church  had 
started  out  with  a  clear  and  strong  impression  that  the 
body  of  our  Lord  in  the  Eucharist  was  a  different  body 

»  Horn,  in  Heb.  xvii.  3;    Pusey,  596-597;    P.  G.  63,  131. 


152       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

from  His  natural  body  glorified  in  the  heavenly  places. 
While  the  Church  felt  deeply  that  the  body  of  the  altar 
was  one  with  the  body  in  glory,  the  Church  felt  just  as 
deeply  that  the  body  of  the  altar  was  not  the  same  as 
the  body  in  glory.  Because  our  Lord's  body  in  all  its 
forms  is  one,  what  was  true  of  the  body  of  the  altar  could 
be  said,  non-literally,  but  deeply  truly,  of  His  body  of 
His  earthly  life  and  death,  and  also  of  His  body  of  the 
heavenly  life.  But  for  some  centuries  the  Church  felt 
the  difference  between  the  body  of  the  altar  and  the 
body  in  glory,  as  a  matter  of  literal  fact,  too  deeply  to  use 
language  that  could  at  all  seem  to  contradict  that  literal 
fact.  In  all  those  years  this  identification  might  have 
been  made.  It  involved  no  new  theology,  when  it  was 
made.  It  waited  for  the  orator  of  the  golden  mouth  to 
be  made.  And  yet  the  number  of  these  identifications  is 
surprisingly  small.  I  proceed  to  give  three  examples 
of  the  more  common  identification,  of  the  body  of  the 
altar  with  the  body  which  was  crucified.  The  first  is 
from  the  book  on  the  Betrayal  of  Judas} 

"And  Judas  was  present  when  Christ  said  this.  This  is  the 
body  which  thou  didst  sell,  O  Judas,  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver; 
this  is  the  blood  for  which,  a  little  while  before,  thou  madest  that 
shameless  compact  with  the  reckless  Pharisees.  Oh!  the  love 
of  Christ  for  man!  Oh!  the  frenzy,  the  madness  of  Judas! 
For  Judas  sold  Him  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  but  Christ,  even 
after  this,  refused  not  to  give  the  very  blood  which  was  sold, 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  to  him  who  sold  it,  if  he  willed." 

The  second  and  third  passages  are  both  from  a  homily 
before  quoted : 

"This,  which  is  in  the  cup,  is  that  which  flowed  from  His  side, 
and  of  that  do  we  partake."  .  .  . 

»  De  Proditione  Judae,  i.  6;    Pusey,  655;    P.  G.  49,  380. 


A.D.  381-431:   GREEK   FATHERS  153 

"For  if  one  would  not  inconsiderately  receive  a  king,  —  why 
say  I,  a  king?  Nay,  were  it  but  a  royal  robe,  one  would  not 
inconsiderately  touch  it  with  unclean  hands,  —  though  he  should 
be  in  solitude,  though  alone,  though  no  man  were  at  hand;  .  .  . 
if  even  a  man's  garment  be  what  one  would  not  venture  incon- 
siderately to  touch,  what  shall  we  say  of  the  body  of  Him 
who  is  God  over  all,  spotless,  pure,  associate  with  the  Divine 
Nature,  the  body  whereby  we  are  and  live,  whereby  the  gates  of 
hell  were  broken  down,  and  the  archways  of  heaven  opened? 
How  shall  we  receive  this  with  so  great  insolence?  Let  us  not,  I 
pray  you,  slay  ourselves  by  our  irreverence,  but  with  all  awful- 
ness  and  purity,  draw  nigh  to  it;  and  when  thou  seest  it  set 
before  thee,  say  thou  to  thyself,  'Because  of  this  body  I  am  no 
longer  earth  and  ashes,  no  longer  a  prisoner,  but  free,  because  of 
this  I  hope  for  heaven,  and  to  receive  the  good  things  therein,  — 
immortal  life,  the  portion  of  angels,  converse  with  Christ.  This 
body,  nailed  and  scourged,  was  more  than  hell  could  stand 
against;  this  body  the  very  sun  saw  sacrificed,  and  turned  away 
its  beams;  for  this  both  the  veil  was  rent,  in  that  moment,  and 
the  rocks  were  burst  asunder,  and  all  the  earth  was  shaken. 
This  is  even  that  body,  the  blood-stained,  the  pierced,  and  that 
out  of  which  gushed  the  saving  fountains,  the  one  of  blood,  and 
the  other  of  water,  for  all  the  world.' "  ^ 

The  identification  of  the  sacramental  body  with  the 
heavenly  body  is  (as  I  have  said  above)  even  with  Chry- 
sostom  very  rare,  but  here  are  two  examples  of  it.  The 
first  is  from  the  homily  last  quoted: 

"Open  only  for  once  the  gates  of  heaven,  and  look  in,  nay, 
rather,  not  of  heaven,  but  of  the  heaven  of  heavens,  and  then 
thou  wilt  behold  what  I  have  been  speaking  of.  For  what  is 
of  all  things  most  precious  there,  this  will  I  show  thee  lying  upon 
the  earth.  For  as  in  royal  palaces  what  is  most  glorious  of  all 
is  not  walls,  nor  golden  roofs,  but  the  person  of  the  king  sitting 
on  the  throne,  so  likewise  in  heaven,  the  body  of  the  King.     But 

1  Horn,  in  1  Cor.  xxiv.  3-7;    Pusey,  579,  582;    P.  G.  61,  199,  202. 


154       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

this  thou  art  now  permitted  to  see  upon  earth.  For  it  is  not 
angels,  nor  archangels,  nor  heavens,  and  heaven  of  heavens,  that 
I  show  thee,  but  the  very  Lord  and  Owner  of  these.  Per- 
ceivest  thou  how  that  which  is  more  precious  than  all  things 
is  seen  by  thee  on  earth,  and  not  seen  only,  but  also  touched, 
and  not  only  touched,  but  likewise  eaten,  and  after  receiving  it 
thou  goest  home."  ^ 

The  next  extract  will  combine  the  two  identifications, 
with  the  body  crucified,  and  with  the  body  glorified.  It 
comes  from  the  Homilies  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians: 

"Since  we  are  concerned  with  the  Lord's  body,  come,  and  let 
us  turn  our  thoughts  to  it,  even  that  which  was  crucified,  which 
was  nailed,  which  is  sacrificed.  .  .  .  Since  we  have  to  do  with  a 
body,  consider  that  so  many  of  us  as  partake  of  the  body,  so  many 
of  us  as  taste  of  this  blood,  do  partake  of  that  which  is  in  no  wise 
different  from  that  body,  nor  separate  [as  regards  participa- 
tion], that  we  taste  of  that  body,  the  same  which  sitteth  above, 
the  same  wliich  is  worshipped  by  angels,  the  same  which  is  next 
to  the  Power  that  is  indefectible.  Alas!  How  many  ways 
to  salvation  are  open  to  us!  He  hath  made  us  His  own  body.  He 
hath  imparted  to  us  His  own  body,  and  yet  naught  of  these 
things  turns  us  away  from  what  is  evil ! "  ^ 

I  have  said  that  in  these  identifications  of  the  sacra- 
mental body  of  our  Lord  with  His  body  natural,  on  earth 
or  in  heaven,  S.  Chrysostom  did  not  expect  to  be  taken 
literally.  Some  critics  will  enquire,  with  a  certain  scorn, 
by  what  right  I  set  aside  such  utterances  as  "non-literal." 
My  plea  in  rebuttal  has  three  divisions.  First,  Chrysos- 
tom certainly  has  the  non-literal  habit.  We  have  heard 
S.  Jerome  saying  that  the  priest  with  hallowed  lips  makes 
the  body  of  Christ.  Chrysostom  would  have  approved 
that  saying  entirely,  we  may  be  sure,  but  to  enforce  a 

1  Horn.  «i  1  Cor.  xxiv.  8;    Puscy,  590;    P.  G.  61.  205. 
»  Uom.  in  Eph.  iii;    Pusey,  590;    P.  0.  62,  27. 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK    FATHERS  155 

different  point  he  says  (in  his  Homilies  on  2  Timothy 
(Hom.  ii.  3),  that  the  priest's  part  "is  but  to  open  his 
mouth,  while  God  worketh  all.  The  priest  only  performs 
a  symbol."  So  again  he  says  {De  Proditione  Judae,  i.  6), 
"It  is  not  man  that  makes  what  lieth  there  to  become 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ",  and  again  (in  the  Homily 
for  Pentecost,  i.  4),  "he  that  is  present  doeth  nothing, 
nor  are  the  gifts  that  lie  before  us  any  accomplishments  of 
human  nature."  ^  These  passages  are  not  to  be  taken 
as  contradicting  S.  Jerome  in  the  least.  Of  course,  S. 
Chrysostom  regarded  the  priest  at  the  altar  as  doing 
something,  and  a  very  great  thing.  But  he  loved 
exaggerated  and  non-literal  expressions  of  great  truths. 

My  second  point  is  that  S.  Chrysostom  must  be  taken 
non-literally  in  the  expressions  which  I  have  indicated, 
when  he  identifies  the  sacramental  body  of  our  Lord  with 
His  natural  body,  or  else  he  will  contradict  the  theology 
of  all  the  Fathers  who  have  testified  before  him,  and 
that  is  an  inadmissible  suggestion  for  these  two  rea- 
sons: (1)  he  is  plainly  unconscious  of  advancing  any 
new  theology  of  the  Eucharist,  and  (2)  his  contempo- 
raries did  not  charge  him  with  having  done  any  such 
thing. 

My  third  point  is  that  to  take  Chrysostom  literally  in 
such  identifications  is  to  make  him  inconsistent  with 
himself.  I  go  back  to  my  second  example  of  Chrysostom 
the  fervid  orator,  to  quote  a  piece  of  sober  theological 
statement  which  just  preceded  that  flame  of  sacred 
passion.  The  reference  is  to  the  Homilies  on  S.  Matthew, 
and  we  shall  find  the  theological  teacher  making  a  careful 
statement  concerning  the  inward  part,  the  Heavenly 
Reality,  of  the  sacrament,  and  declaring  it  to  be  a  thing 

*  The  references  for  these  three  passages  are  P.  G.  62,  612;  49,  380; 
and  50,  459. 


156       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

incorporeal,  which  coming  from  heaven  makes  bread  to 
be  our  Lord's  body.     Here  are  the  words: 

"His  word  cannot  deceive,  but  our  senses  are  easily  beguiled. 
That  hath  never  failed,  but  this  in  most  things  goeth  wrong. 
Since,  then,  the  word  saith,  'This  is  My  body,'  let  us  both  be 
persuaded,  and  believe,  and  look  at  it  with  the  eyes  of  the  mind.' 

For  Christ  has  given  nothing  sensible,  but  though  in  things 
sensible,  yet  all  to  be  perceived  by  the  mind.  So  also  in  Bap- 
tism, the  gift  is  bestowed  by  a  sensible  thing,  that  is,  the  water; 
but  that  which  is  done  is  perceived  in  the  mind,  the  birth,  I  mean, 
and  the  regeneration.  For  if  thou  hadst  been  incorporeal.  He 
would  have  delivered  thee  the  incorporeal  gifts  bare;  but 
because  the  soul  is  locked  up  in  a  body.  He  delivers  thee  the 
things  which  the  mind  perceives,  in  things  sensible."  * 

The  grace  of  the  two  greater  sacraments,  I  understand 
Chrysostom  to  mean,  is  a  grace  of  union  with  the  Person 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  participation  in  His  Life. 
The  gift  is  in  each  sacrament  "incorporeal,"  but  it  must 
be  given  by  means  of  a  material  element,  and  it  may  be 
added  that  because  we  are  partly  material  creatures,  our 
Saviour  had  to  take  a  material  embodiment,  which  He 
will  retain  forever,  and  through  His  embodiment  in 
sacramental  forms  here,  whether  of  water  or  of  bread  and 
wine,  He  does  unite  us  to  His  glorified  body  in  heaven, 
as  well  as  to  His  mystical  body,  of  so  deep  a  humiliation, 
His  Church  on  earth.  But  to  Chrysostom  the  gift  given 
in  the  Eucharist  is  a  thing  understandable  by  the  mind, 
and  not  a  thing  perceivable  by  the  senses.  And  further- 
more, it  is  a  thing  "incorporeal."  Now  our  Lord's 
glorified  body  is  a  thing  capable  of  being  perceived  by 
the  senses,  or  it  has  ceased  to  be  a  human  body.     It  is 

'  I  allow  myself  to  think  that  this  phrase,  "look  at  it  with  the  eyes 
of  the  mind,"  is  quite  equivalent  to  "take  it  non-litcrally." 
2  Bom.  Ixxxii.  4;    Pusey,  570;    P.  G.  58,  743. 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK    FATHERS  157 

not  perceived,  according  to  the  Oxford  theology,  and  the 
Roman,  because  our  Lord  chooses  that  it  shall  not  be; 
but  it  remains  that  it  is  in  its  nature  "  capable  of  being 
perceived"  (aiadrjTov) .  And  certainly,  being  a  body, 
it  is  not  "incorporeal."  We  must  take  our  saint  non- 
literally,  on  one  side  of  his  mind,  or  the  other,  —  either 
as  rhapsodizing  orator  or  as  philosophic  theologian.  If 
we  must  somewhere  use  with  S.  Chrysostom  this  method 
of  non-literal  interpretation,  with  its  attendant  risks  of 
so  explaining  one's  author  as  to  explain  him  away,  it 
seems  to  me  far  more  reasonable  to  apply  it  to  the  soaring 
emotional  orator  than  to  the  teacher  carefully  explaining, 
and  aiming  to  guard  against  mistake. 

II 

Macaeius  Magnes  (a.d.  400) 

Contemporary,  as  his  writings  prove,  with  S.  Chrysos- 
tom was  another  bishop  who  has  been  brought  to  our 
notice  in  recent  years,  through  a  re-discovery  of  portions 
of  his  writings,  under  the  name  of  Macarius  Magnes.^ 
He  is  probably  to  be  identified  with  Macarius,  Bishop  of 
Magnesia,  who  took  part  (a.d.  403)  in  the  Council  of  the 
Oak,  which  pronounced  a  sentence  of  condemnation  and 
deposition  upon  S.  Chrysostom.  Indeed  his  having  been 
known  as  an  opponent  of  S.  Chrysostom  is  very  probably 
a  cause  of  the  dropping  out  of  sight  of  his  writings.     But 

^  My  references  are  made  to  his  book  called  Apocritica,  iii.  23.  The 
book  is  cast  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue  in  wliich  are  arrayed  all  the  strong- 
est objections  against  Christianity  made  by  heathen  philosophers  near 
the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  Paraphrases  and  a  partial  quotation 
may  be  foimd  in  Stone,  p.  65  and  pp.  73-74,  and  a  paraphrase  without 
direct  quotation  in  the  Article  Macarius  Magnes,  in  the  Dictionary  of 
Christian  Biography.  No  edition  of  the  Greek  text  of  Macarius  is  easily 
obtainable,  and  I  can  give  no  references,  but  see  Note  I,  p.  269. 


158       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

it  must  be  remembered  that  there  were  as  yet  no  serious 
differences  among  the  Church's  theologians  as  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharist.  To  be  sure,  this  was  a  time 
of  controversy,  and  theologians  were  more  ready  than 
they  had  been  in  earlier  days  to  condemn  one  another's 
phrases  instead  of  looking  for  a  good  meaning  in  them. 
Thus  Macarius  disowns  somewhat  sharply  the  use  of  the 
word  "type,"  which  we  have  found  to  be  nearly  universal. 
He  says  that  "it  is  not  a  figure  (tvwos)  of  the  body  and 
a  figure  of  the  blood,  as  some,  whose  minds  are  blinded, 
have  declaimed,^  but  really  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ." 
But  it  should  be  observed  that  it  was  not  at  all  the 
doctrine  of  Macarius  that  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
Lord  were  present  in  the  Eucharist  as  added  to  the  bread 
and  wine.  Far  from  it!  The  elements  themselves  were 
made  to  be  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord.  Macarius 
speaks  of  "the  body  which  is  the  bread"  and  "  the  blood 
which  is  the  wine."  That  is  very  different  indeed  from 
calling  bread  "our  Lord's  body,"  and  then  explaining 
that  this  is  said  because  our  Lord's  body  is  there  under  a 
veil,  and  is  (of  all  that  is  there)  the  utterly  predominant 
fact.  Granting  that  on  such  terms  bread  might  be 
called  "our  Lord's  body,"  such  a  doctrine  gives  no  excuse 
for  speaking  of  "the  body  which  is  the  bread."  Further- 
more, when  Macarius  wishes  to  make  mention  of  the 
earthly  part  and  the  heavenly  part  together,  he  does  not 

^  The  word  used  is  ippaif/c^drjffav,  which  Dr.  Stone  translates  "have 
foolishly  said."  In  its  original  meaning  pa\p(^d(lv  was  "to  recite  verses 
strung  together  at  length."  As  a  term  of  contempt  it  carried  the  idea 
of  a  dull  repetition  of  other  men's  sajnngs.  It  may  be  conjectured  that 
Macarius  was  a  bitter  Anti-Origenist,  who  had  seen  such  language 
quoted  from  Origcn,  and  was  so  ill-informed  as  to  think  that  it  marked  a 
man  as  a  follower  of  Origen.  What  the  earlier  writers  had  really  meant 
by  tOttos  and  figura  seems  to  have  been  exactly  the  doctrine  of  Macarius 
himself. 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK    FATHERS  159 

speak  of  the  bread  as  containing  our  Lord's  body,  but  of 
"the  bread  .  .  .  ,  being  united  to  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

The  connection  of  these  phrases  will  repay  examina- 
tion. For,  in  fact,  here  is  another  attempt  at  a  philosophy 
of  the  Eucharist,  such  as  we  had  from  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
and  following  much  the  same  order  of  thought.  The 
heathen  opponent  in  the  Apocritica  complains  that  the 
suggestion  of  eating  the  flesh  and  drinking  the  blood  of 
our  Master  is  barbarous  and  revolting,  and  even  if  it  be 
explained  as  allegorical  (the  heathen  objector  seems  to 
have  rather  expected  such  a  defense),  it  is  still  disgusting, 
he  thinks,  and  repulsive  to  a  decent  mind.  The  Christian 
disputant  makes  answer  that  it  is  not  shocking  at  all  when 
rightly  viewed.  An  infant  will  die  unless  it  eats  the 
flesh  and  drinks  the  blood  of  its  mother,  for  its  food  is 
obtained  from  the  physical  substance  of  its  mother, 
transmuted  by  the  processes  of  nature  into  milk.  It  is 
not  unreasonable  that  Christ  should  command  those  to 
whom  He  has  given  the  privilege  of  becoming  children  of 
God  (S.  John  i.  12)  to  eat  the  mystic  flesh  and  drink  the 
mystic  blood  of  her  who  bare  them.  For  the  Wisdom  of 
God  brought  forth  children,  and  fed  them  from  the  two 
breasts  of  the  two  Covenants,  and  gave  them  her  own 
flesh  and  blood,  and  bestowed  upon  them  immortality; 
and  this  Wisdom  of  God,  who  thus  did  for  men  a  mother's 
part,  is  no  other  than  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself. 
Then  our  author  goes  on  to  show  that  men  are  made 
from  the  earth,  and  in  eating  corn  and  wine  and  oil, 
which  are  fruits  of  the  earth,  they  may  be  said  to  eat  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  the  earth.  From  the  earth  they  are 
nourished,  and  the  earth  suffers  no  loss  in  giving  them 
nourishment.  Again,  he  points  out  that  the  Son  of  God 
created  the  earth  with  all  its  powers  of  nourishment,  and 


160       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

in  the  Incarnation  took  from  the  earth  a  body  for  Himself. 
Then  comes  the  passage  from  which  I  have  abeady  quoted. 
You  can  see  that  Macarius  is  willing  to  put  a  highly 
allegorical  meaning  on  the  words  "body"  and  "blood" 
in  connection  with  the  eucharistic  mystery.  But  it  should 
be  observed  on  the  one  hand,  that  this  allegorizer  uses 
only  allegories  in  which  some  great  thing  is  done,  and  done 
in  a  mysterious  way,  and  on  the  other  hand,  that  what- 
ever meaning  he  does  attach  to  those  words  "body"  and 
"blood"  is  predicated  of  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eu- 
charist quite  directly.  This  bread  and  wine  are  not 
figures  of  that  body  and  blood  of  Christ  with  which  He 
has  promised  to  feed  His  people.  Other  men  have  called 
the  bread  and  wine  "figures,"  as  being  types  of  our  Lord's 
natural  flesh  and  blood.  Macarius  cares  nothing  for  any 
such  suggestion.  He  regards  it  as  idle  declamation. 
The  bread  and  wine  are  the  great  thing  ol  the  Lord's 
promise. 

in 

S.  Isidore  of  Pelusium,  Theologian  and  Ascetic 

I  will  cite  here  a  solitary  phrase  of  one  who  was  a 
great  power  in  his  day  in  Egypt,  S.  Isidore,  a  monk 
from  before  a.d.  395  to  a.d.  449  or  450,  and  for  years 
Abbot  of  his  monastery,  near  the  city  of  Pelusium.  He 
was  eminent  for  learning,  for  theological  acumen,  for 
careful  discrimination  and  sober  judgment,  and  so  faithful 
in  duty  that  he  could  more  than  once  rebuke  his  Patri- 
arch, being  such  a  one  as  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  yet  re- 
tain his  correspondent's  affectionate  respect.  This  great 
man,  in  a  letter  to  one  Marathonius,  against  the  heresy 
which  denied  the  Personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  speaks  of 
our  Lord  as  giving,  to  be  a  completion  of  the  work  of 
the  Holy  Trinity, 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK    FATHERS  161 

"the  All-Holy  Spirit,  who  is  also  in  the  Invocation  of  Holy 
Baptism  numbered,  as  freeing  from  sins,  with  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  and  who  on  the  mystical  table  exhibits  the  common 
bread  as  a  special  body  of  His  [our  Saviour's]  Incarnation."  * 

Dr.  Pusey  translates  (xdixa  ISlkov,  "the  very  body" 
(of  His  Incarnation).  Rev.  C.  H.  Hebert,  in  whose 
Catena  I  first  saw  the  Greek  of  the  passage,  calls  it  "the 
peculiar  body."  It  remains  that  there  is  no  article,  and 
I  venture  to  assert  that  "a  special  body"  or  "a  peculiar 
body"  is  the  only  possible  meaning  of  that  Greek  phrase 
in  that  connection.  It  seems  to  point  to  the  eucharistic 
body,  as  being  somehow  a  different  body  from  the  natural 
body,  of  our  Lord. 

IV 

An  Unknown  Writer,  Caesarius 

I  place  next  to  S.  Isidore  an  obscure  witness,  of  whom 
we  know  only  his  name,  Caesarius,  and  that  his  date 
must  fall  in  this  time  with  which  we  are  dealing.  He 
wrote  certain  Dialogues,  and  Photius,  a  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople  in  the  eighth  century,  mentions  a  tradi- 
tion that  he  was  a  brother  of  S.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus. 
S.  Gregory  had  certainly  a  brother  of  that  name,  who  was 
a  coiu't  physician,  but  writing  a  funeral  panegyric  on  his 
brother,  S.  Gregory  mentions  no  such  book,  nor  does 
S.  Jerome.  The  Dialogues  of  Caesarius  cannot,  there- 
fore, fairly  be  quoted  as  a  pendant  to  the  study  of  the 
theology  of  the  two  Gregories,  but  the  book  has  a  certain 
value  as  illustrating  the  lines  of  Christian  thought  about 
the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century.  From  his  Third 
Dialogue  we  may  read  two  passages,  from  Questions  140 

»  Exnst.  cix;    Pusey,  665;   P.  G.  78,  756. 


1C2       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

and  161,  respectively.  They  are  quoted  by  Dr.  Pusey 
(p.  439),  and  may  be  found  with  the  works  of  S.  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus  in  the  Patrologia  Graeca} 

"But  upon  the  Servant  of  God,  the  Word  of  God,  he  even 
tramples  who  without  fear  receives  His  mystic  mixtures  with 
hands  that  are  covetous  and  that  are  lifted  up  against  his  neigh- 
bor, setting  on  an  equality  with  common  bread  and  wine  things 
which  among  the  faithful  by  understanding  eyes  are  beheld  as 
God.  For  in  neither  (body  nor  blood)  was  He  vanquished,  when 
the  one  was  nailed  fast,  and  the  other  flowed  down,  nor  is  He 
again  consumed  when  He  is  partaken  of  like  the  air  by  all,  and 
still  remains  the  same  undiminished  God." 

The  second  of  these  sentences,  beginning  "For  in  neither 
was  He  vanquished,"  is  omitted  by  Dr.  Pusey  as  of  no 
particular  account.  I  venture  to  suggest  that  it  is  one 
of  the  most  interesting  and  striking  passages  that  we 
have  seen.  Not  only  are  certain  visible  objects  declared 
to  be  beheld  as  God,  but  they  are  so  entirely  assumed  to 
be  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,  that  the  writer  goes 
on  to  speak  of  the  one  as  being  nailed  to  the  Cross,  and 
of  the  other  as  flowing  down,  when  our  Lord  died.  The 
same  objects  are  at  once  visible,  material  objects,  and 
yet  the  very  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord.  I  pass  on  to 
the  other  passage,  where  an  objector  is  trying  to  charge 
Catholic  theology  with  an  inconsistency  in  disowning 
anthropomorphic  conceptions  of  Deity,  and  yet  pro- 
claiming an  Incarnate  God. 

"Objector.  How  is  it  that  after  disowning  in  your  former 
arguments  those  who  ascribe  bodily  members  to  Deity  and  speak 
of  God  as  a  being  in  the  form  of  man,  you  come  back  now  and 
answer  tliat  in  our  time  He  is  by  nature  just  tliat.  Answer.  I 
did  not  say  that  He  was  so  by  nature,  but  that  He  became  so, 

»  P.  G.  38,  10C5,  1132. 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK    FATHERS  163 

having  been  united  both  in  soul  and  body  with  our  people,  since 
also  the  Holy  Word  Himself,  when  He  had  come  to  be  as  one 
of  us,  and  was  sharing  our  manner  of  life,  being  what  He  was, 
and  being  seen  as  what  He  was  not,  said  to  the  guild  ^  of  the 
Apostles,  while  distributing  bread,  'Take,  eat  of  it,  all  of  you; 
this  is  My  body,'  when  as  yet  He  had  not  been  made  a  sacrifice 
in  the  flesh,  and  'Take,  drinlv,'  when  He  had  not  had  His  side 
pierced  with  a  spear  on  the  Cross.  And  we  see  that  holy  bread 
to-day  laid  on  the  stainless  table  in  the  bloodless  sanctuary,  at 
the  season  of  the  divine  and  mystic  rite,  and  not  looking  like 
the  image  of  the  saving  body  of  Him  who  is  our  God  and  Word, 
and  the  cup  of  wine  that  is  placed  with  it  not  looking  like  the 
blood  that  was  mingled  with  the  same.  They  do  not  look  like 
the  articulation  of  His  limbs,  nor  the  quality  of  flesh  and  blood, 
nor  yet  like  the  invisible  and  secretly  united  Deity  which  has  no 
outward  form.  For  the  one  [our  Lord's  body]  has  blood,  has 
life,  has  muscles,  is  red,  is  jointed,  is  supplied  with  various 
arteries  and  veins,  with  which  also  the  Word  that  created  all 
things  has  been  interwoven,  even  to  having  hair  and  nails.  For 
I  say  that  the  very  hair  of  Christ  is  the  hair  of  God,  and  His 
feet  and  nails  and  blood  and  moisture.  For  the  Word  is  joined 
for  my  sake  with  all  that  is  mine.  So,  then,  the  one  stands  erect, 
articulate,  can  walk,  can  act,  but  the  other  [the  holy  bread]  is 
round,  is  inarticulate,  is  lifeless,  bloodless,  moveless,  looking  like 
neither,  not  like  that  which  is  seen  of  Him  who  is  in  His  Deity 
invisible.  But  nevertheless  we  believe  the  divine  revelation, 
and  that  that  which  is  consecrated  on  the  divine  table,  and 
everywhere  distributed  to  the  guild  without  division,  and  par- 
taken of  without  failure  of  supply,  is,  not  as  a  matter  of  being 
equal  or  like,  but  properly  and  fitly  [as  regards  the  use  of  terms] 
the  very  body  of  God."  ^ 

1  The  word  used  is  Oiaau  from  Olaaos,  a  word  used  generally  of  a 
company  of  persons  bound  together  under  some  religious  sanction. 

2  I  subjoin  the  Greek  of  the  last  sentence:  inarTtvonev  bk  ofius  rfj 
Berjyoplq.,  aal  ovx  ws  o/xoiov  f)  'iaoi>,  dXXa  Kvplcos  Kal  apapoTUi  avrd 
irrapxeiv  to  Oelov  xxcoixa  to  ewl  ttjs  deias  Tpairk^tjs  iepovpyovnevov,  Kal 
T<{j   diaacp  wavTij    dxyuijrcos    Siaipovixepov,   Kal   aXr/KTUs   utTtxonevov.      Dr. 


164       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

According  to  Caesarius,  then,  if  I  understand  him 
rightly,  the  material  element  of  bread  is  made  in  con- 
secration to  be  "the  very  body  of  God,"  though  it  is  not, 
even  then,  like  nor  equal  to  the  body  which  our  Lord  had 
before.  I  take  "not  equal"  to  mean  here  "not  identical." 
In  what  other  sense  could  it  have  been  said  that  the 
body  on  the  altar  was  not  equal  to  the  body  which  our 
Lord  wore  on  earth,  or  even  to  the  body  which  He  wears 
in  Heaven.'^  If  any  such  sense  can  be  alleged,  —  I 
suppose  that  it  can  be  done,  certainly,  —  I  must  ask  what 
reason  was  there  for  introducing  that  phrase  here?  I  can 
think  of  no  other  meaning  that  seems  pertinent  to  the 
argument  which  Caesarius  is  making. 


Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Eminent  Commentator 
ON  Holy  Scripture  (a.d.  350-428) 

We  must  pass  with  but  a  slender  reference  one  of  the 
greatest  writers  of  his  day,  Theodore,  Bishop  of  Mop- 
suestia, not  far  from  Tarsus,  for  thirty-six  years  from 
a.d.  392.  He  was  a  really  remarkable  commentator  on 
the  Bible,  a  prince  among  zealous  students  of  the  literal 
meaning  and  historical  background  of  the  different 
books.  In  later  years  he  fell  under  suspicion,  along 
with  his  beloved  teacher  Diodore,  Archbishop  of  Tarsus, 
as  having  sowed   (so  some  declared)   the  seeds  of  the 

Pusey's  translation  omits  avrb,  and  seems  to  me  to  miss  the  force 
of  inrkpxtiv,  and  hence  to  reverse  the  author's  intended  relation  of 
subject  and  predicate.  He  would  render,  "  the  divine  body  is  that  which 
is  consecrated,"  meaning,  apparently,  "the  heavenly  body  is  the  fact 
which  is  found  on  the  altar."  Caesarius  means  just  the  opposite,  — 
"the  fact  which  is  found  upon  the  altar,  i.  c,  bread,  is  the  very  {abrb) 
body  of  God,"  though  not  like,  nor  equal  to,  the  natural  body. 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK   FATHERS  165 

Nestorlan  heresy.  There  is  no  reason  for  imagining 
that  his  doctrine  about  the  Eucharist  ever  wandered 
from  the  Hne  of  the  Church's  generally  received  thought. 
He  has  left  so  little  of  reference  to  this  subject  that  his 
name  does  not  appear  in  Dr.  Pusey's  great  Catena  nor  in 
Dr.  Stone's  History.  Yet  I  find  two  phrases  of  his  which 
seem  to  me  worthy  of  mention.  Commenting  on  1  Cor. 
X.  3-5,  he  says: 

"He  calls  both  the  food  and  the  drink  spiritual,  on  the  ground 
that  the  Spirit  did  Himself  supply  them  both  through  Moses, 
according  to  His  secret  power.  .  .  .  And  the  expression  'That 
rock  was  Christ'  was  meant  to  say  that  the  rock  was  among 
them  what  Christ  is  to  us,  whose  blood  we,  the  faithful,  do 
spiritually  drink,  as  it  is  transmade  in  the  mysteries."  ^ 

Again,  in  commenting  on  S.  Matt.  xxvi.  26,  Theodore 
has  this  to  say: 

"He  said  not,  'This  is  the  symbol  of  My  body,  and  this  of  My 
blood,'  but  'This  is  My  body,  and  My  blood,'  teaching  us  not  to 
look  to  the  nature  of  the  elements,^  but  that  through  the  Thanks- 
giving {ei)xapi(TTlas)  that  has  been  made  they  are  changed  into 
flesh  and  blood.  As  the  woman  was  made  a  member  of  Adam  by 
being  taken  from  His  bones  and  flesh,  so  we  also  are  members  of 
the  Master's  body,  as  having  been  made  *of  His  flesh  and  of  His 
bones.'"  3 

It  seems  noteworthy  that  Theodore  should  show  him- 
self impatient  of  the  word  "symbol"  (avu^oXov),  as  Ma- 
carius  Magnes  has  been  seen  to  have  been  impatient 
of  the  word  "type,"  in  his  insistence  that  our  Lord's 

1  Pcd.  Graeca,  66,  885. 

2  "Of  the  elements"  —  tuv  wpoKeifxivuv,  "the  things  laid  before  God," 
a  technical  term  used  exactly  as  we  use  "the  elements"  in  our  modern 
speech. 

3  P.  G.  66,  713. 


166       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

body  and  blood  are  really  given  in  the  Eucharist.  I 
venture  to  think  that  these  writers  would  have  acknowl- 
edged, if  pressed,  that,  of  course,  the  consecrated  elements 
were  "symbols"  in  a  sense.  It  remains  that  Theodore 
is  not  on  record  as  so  saying,  and  he  is  on  record  as  dis- 
owning that  mode  of  speech.  On  the  other  hand,  he  is 
found,  in  his  Commentary  on  S.  John,^  speaking  of  our 
Lord's  teachings  about  this  sacrament  as  "things  of 
thought"  (vorjra),  as  distinguished  —  at  least  that  is 
the  distinction  which  his  old  friend  and  fellow-student, 
John  Chrysostom,  makes  —  from  "things  of  sense" 
(ai(7dr}Ta) .  He  regards  the  food  of  God  as  "spiritual," 
also,  a  word  which  in  other  writers  we  have  found  asso- 
ciated with  the  idea  of  "non-literal,"  though  not  in  the 
very  least  wuth  the  idea  of  unreal.  But  chiefly  I  press 
the  point  that  Theodore  describes  the  elements  as 
"changed,"  and  as  "changed  into  flesh  and  blood." 
My  friends  of  the  Oxford  School  will  point  out  justly 
that  they  believe  that  a  great  change  comes  to  the  eucha- 
ristic  elements,  and  that  it  is  a  change  made  by  a  great 
indwelling.  If  I  may  claim  that  the  elements  are  magnifi- 
cently "changed"  by  receiving  a  certain  Presence,  a 
certain  great  new  ownership  and  use,  without  being  in 
the  least  changed  in  their  own  nature,  in  their  ovaLa,  as 
a  Greek  writer  might  call  it,  in  their  ''substantia"  in 
Latin  terminology,  their  "substance"  in  English  speech, 
why  may  not  the  followers  of  the  Oxford  School  claim 
that  Theodore's  word  "changed"  fits  just  as  well  with 
their  view,  that  the  elements  are  changed  by  receiving 
our  Lord's  Presence  in  His  glorified  body,  "present  after 
the  manner  of  spirit"?  I  answer  that  so  far  as  the  mere 
word  "changed"  is  concerned,  they  have  as  much  right 
to  use  it  as  I.  But  Theodore  says  that  the  elements 
I  vi.  29;    p.  G.  G6,  745. 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK    FATHERS  167 

are  changed  "into  flesh  and  blood."  He  does  not  say 
that  they  are  changed  so  as  to  be  vehicles  of  our  Lord's 
flesh  and  blood.  That  explanation,  I  contend,  would 
have  been  perfectly  easy  to  put  into  words.  If  that  was 
the  explanation  held  by  the  Fathers,  I  know  of  no  one 
of  them  that  ever  did  put  it  into  words.  Some  of  them 
—  this  great  Theodore  is  one  —  say  distinctly  that  the 
bread  and  wine  are  changed  into  flesh  and  blood.  What- 
ever they  may  have  understood  by  "body,"  or  "flesh," 
and  "blood,"  the  result  of  the  sacramental  change,  as  it 
appeared  to  their  eyes,  was  simply  that  the  elements  had 
come  to  be  —  not  "contain"  or  "hide,"  but  "be"  —  what 
those  greater  names  portended. 

VI 

Nestorius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  from 

A.D.    428    TO    A.D.    431 

We  come  now  to  the  time  when  all  the  Eastern  Church 
was  shaken  by  the  bitter  controversy  that  arose  between 
a  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  and  a  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople, between  Cyril  and  Nestorius.  Both  were  hard 
men  in  personal  temper.  Those  who  are  moved  to  pity 
for  Nestorius,  condemned  as  a  heretic  at  the  General 
Council  of  Ephesus,  a.d.  431,  and  sent  into  exile  by  the 
Emperor  of  the  East,  do  not  commonly  remember  — 
perhaps  many  of  them  never  knew  —  that  this  same 
Nestorius  was  himself  a  bitter  persecutor  of  persons 
whom  he  regarded  as  aliens  in  religion,  and  that  on  the 
occasion  of  his  first  sermon  as  Patriarch  he  addressed  the 
Emperor  with  such  words  as  these:  "Give  me,  my  prince, 
the  earth  purged  of  heretics,  and  I  will  give  you  heaven 
as  a  reward.  Help  me  in  destroying  heretics,  and  I  will 
help  you  in  destroying  your  Persian  foes."     Nestorius 


168       THE  ETTCHARISTTC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Wcis  not  a  lovable  person,  nor  large-minded.  Modern 
scholars  have  raised  a  question  whether  he  really  held 
and  taught  the  heresy  which  bears  his  name,  making  out 
the  eternal  Son  of  God  to  have  adopted  a  man  as  His 
agent,  so  that  God  did  not  suffer  on  the  cross,  and  Jesus 
was  not  God.  Certainly  he  laid  himself  widely  open  to 
suspicion  of  that  kind.  But  I  think  that  in  his  case, 
also,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  in  anything  he 
departed  from  the  Church's  ordinary  teaching  as  to  the 
eucharistic  body.  The  writings  of  Nestorius  were  ordered 
to  be  destroyed  after  his  condemnation.  We  have  but 
little  of  his  remaining,  save  in  quotations  made  by  his 
opponents.  But  an  ancient  Syriac  book,  preserved  among 
Syriac-speaking  Nestorians,  and  called  The  Bazaar  of 
Heraclides,  is  now  known  to  be  the  work  of  the  deposed 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  In  this  book  Nestorius 
raises  the  following  questions : 

"Is  the  bread  the  body  of  Christ  by  a  change  of  oiaia?  Or 
are  we  His  body  by  a  change?  Or  is  the  body  of  the  Son  of  God 
one  in  nature  with  God  the  Word?" 

To  these  questions  Nestorius  expects  the  answer, 
"No."  His  thought  seems  to  run  along  these  Unes: 
We  are  all  agreed  on  certain  points,  as  that  we  who  by 
our  baptism  and  our  communions  are  members  of  Christ, 
are  not  made  to  be  any  other  than  human  beings,  not 
being  deified  by  the  coming  of  the  Divine  Word  to  dwell 
in  us,  and  that  the  bread  which  we  all  hold  to  be  our 
Lord's  body  is  really  bread  as  it  was  before,  in  spite  of 
having  received  the  indwelling  of  the  Divine  Word.  Then 
it  follows,  he  would  say,  that  the  indwelling  of  the  Divine 
Word  in  the  flesh  that  was  born  of  the  Virgin  leaves  that 
flesh  merely  the  flesh  of  a  man  after  all. 

Of  course,  the  weak  point  in  the  argument  of  Nestorius 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK   FATHERS  169 

was  that  he  inserted  "of  a  man"  in  place  of  "human." 
Our  Lord  took  a  human  nature  to  Himself,  but  not  the 
nature  of  a  man.  He  took  a  human  body,  but  not  the 
body  of  a  man.  Ordinarily  a  human  nature  implies  a 
human  person.  Our  Lord  did  not  take  to  Himself  a  man, 
a  human  nature  with  a  personaUty  of  its  own  already 
inherent  in  it.  "The  Word  was  made  flesh,"  taking  to 
Himself  flesh  as  an  embodiment  of  His  own  sole.  Divine 
Person.  But  the  things  to  which  Nestorius  appealed  in 
his  first  two  questions  above  quoted  are  things  which  the 
Church  of  his  day  did,  I  think,  agree  in  holding.  At  any 
rate,  I  have  seen  no  passage  quoted  from  Cyril  in  which 
he  objects  to  either  of  these  suggestions  of  Nestorius. 
Nestorius  goes  on  thus: 

"How  is  it  that  when  He  said  over  the  bread,  'This  is  My 
body,'  He  did  not  say  that  the  bread  was  not  bread,  and  the 
body  not  body?  But  He  said  'bread'  and  'body',  as  showing 
what  it  is  in  ovaia.  But  we  are  aware  that  the  bread  is  bread 
in  nature  and  in  ovaia.  Yet  Cyril  wishes  to  persuade  us  to 
believe  that  the  bread  is  His  body  by  faith,  and  not  by  nature, — 
that  what  it  is  not  as  to  oicria,  that  it  becomes  by  faith." 

It  seems  quite  clear  what  Nestorius  believed.  What 
he  was  ascribing  to  Cyril  is  not  so  easy  to  make  out. 
It  is  to  be  remembered  that  we  are  reading  the  language 
of  a  bitter  controversialist,  who  is  not  to  be  supposed  to 
be  careful  to  be  just,  or  even  to  have  patience  and  good 
temper  enough  to  make  him  capable  of  being  just.  What 
Nestorius  habitually  charged  against  Cyril  was  that 
Cyril  deified  the  flesh  of  the  Christ.  It  should  be  noted 
that  in  the  above  extract  Nestorius  asks  tauntingly  why 
our  Lord  did  not  say  that  the  bread  was  not  bread,  and 
the  body  not  body.  The  two  cases  stand  on  the  same 
footing  in  the  mind  of  Nestorius.  He  charges  Cyril 
with  the  same  offense  in  connection  with  the  body  natural 


170       THE  EUCIIARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

and  the  body  sacramental,  —  the  offense  of  deifying  it. 
Nestorius  insisted  that  the  Divine  Word  was  in  His 
Divine  Nature  hfe-giving  but  that  His  flesh  was  not  so. 
A  human  body,  Nestorius  would  argue,  cannot  give  Di- 
vine Life.  It  is  a  pitiful  sort  of  argument.  It  begs 
the  question,  assuming  that  our  Lord's  human  nature  is 
the  human  nature  of  a  mere  man.  But  the  poverty  of  the 
argument,  and  even  the  fact  that  a  grave  heresy  lurks 
behind  it,  should  not  blind  us  to  two  important  points  in 
connection  with  our  present  study: 

(1)  Nestorius  was  casting  about  for  an  argument 
which  should  be  popular,  he  was  trying  to  offer  a  sugges- 
tion which  everybody  would  accept,  when  he  asked  his 
triumphant  question,  "Is  the  bread  the  body  of  Christ 
by  a  change  of  ovaia?"  He  seems  to  have  expected 
confidently  that  the  whole  Church  would  say,  "No." 

(2)  The  opponents  of  Nestorius  do  not  seem  to  have 
made  any  difficulty  about  that  particular  point.  They 
assailed  him  for  denying  that  the  flesh  of  our  Lord  was 
life-giving.  They  showed  that  that  flesh  was  life-giving 
in  our  Lord's  earthly  life.  They  anathematized  Nestorius 
for  denying  that  our  Lord's  flesh  was  life-giving  in  the 
Eucharist.  They  did  not  seize  upon  that  suggestion  (so 
striking  to  a  modern  student)  that  the  bread  which  was 
consecrated  to  be  our  Lord's  body  was  still,  in  its  nature 
and  substance,  bread,  remaining  so  still  after  it  had 
become  our  Lord's  body.  They  do  not  seem  to  have 
found  any  heresy  in  that,  even  when  they  were  hunting 
down  heresies,  like  hounds  in  full  cry.  All  this  is  the 
more  noteworthy,  because  Nestorius  comes  from  the 
same  theological  atmosphere  which  formed  the  minds  of 
John  Chrysostom  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  The 
three  together  may  be  taken  as  reflecting  fairly  the 
eucharistic  theology  of  the  School  of  Autioch. 


A.D.  381-431:   GREEK   FATHERS  171 

VII 

S.  Cyril,  Patriakch  of  Alexandria  (a.d.  376-444) 

We  turn  to  the  chief  opponent  of  Nestorius,  the  great 
Alexandrian  patriarch,  Cyril.  He  was  like  Nestorius  in 
a  certain  hardness  of  mind  and  temper.  He  was  not  a 
man  to  make  allowances,  not  a  man  to  balance  carefully 
the  elements  of  truth  that  might  be  found  in  a  statement 
which  seemed  to  him  to  carry  a  suggestion  of  fundamental 
error.  In  his  own  theological  studies  he  labored  for 
balance  most  carefully,  and  maintained  it  most  admirably. 
In  opposing  Nestorius  he  did  not  fall  into  the  snare  of 
Eutyches.  But  in  his  controversial  writing  he  sometimes 
seems  almost  to  be  trying  to  make  the  medicines  of 
truth  difficult  for  his  opponent  to  swallow.  I  make  my 
personal  acknowledgment  that  for  years  I  had  allowed 
my  own  detailed  studies  of  patristic  teaching  about  the 
Eucharist  to  end  with  Chrysostom.  When,  then,  I  came 
to  examine  with  care  the  utterances  of  S.  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
dria on  this  subject,  my  first  feeling  was  that  here  I  was 
coming  into  a  new  theological  atmosphere,  and  perhaps 
even  into  a  new  theology.  True,  there  was  a  passage  — 
I  shall  quote  it  presently  —  in  which  Cyril  seemed  to 
attempt  something  in  the  way  of  a  philosophy  of  the 
eucharistic  Presence,  and  it  seemed  to  me  to  be  quite 
after  my  own  heart.  But  other  passages — and  there  were 
many  of  them  —  were  filled  with  such  a  passionate  asser- 
tion of  the  eucharistic  gift  as  the  very  flesh  of  God,  and 
what  meant  much  more  to  me,  such  a  habit  of  moving 
directly  and  altogether  naturally  from  the  flesh  of  our 
Lord's  natural  body  to  the  flesh  received  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  that  it  seemed  as  if  my  distinction  between 
"things  identified"  and  "things  identical,"  even  if  it 


172       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

were  reasonably  applied  as  a  key  to  unlock  former  diffi- 
culties, could  here  no  longer  bear  the  strain  which  must 
be  put  upon  it. 

Having  made  this  acknowledgment  in  all  simplicity  of 
honesty,  I  ask  the  indulgence  of  a  thoughtful  hearing  for 
my  statement  of  the  conclusions  as  to  S.  Cyril's  meaning 
to  which  my  further  study  of  the  Nestorian  controversy 
led  me.  For,  in  the  first  place,  S.  Cyril  himself  claims 
eagerly  that  he  has  no  new  theology  at  all.  "We  every- 
where follow  the  opinions  of  the  holy  fathers,"  he  writes 
to  John  of  Antioch,  "and  especially  those  of  our  all-well- 
famed  father,  Athanasius,  and  refuse  to  deviate  at  all  in 
anything  from  them."  Then  if  it  be  suggested  that 
Cyril  had  moved  away  from  his  predecessors  uncon- 
sciously, I  will  add,  as  my  second  point,  that  (as  I  have 
said  above)  Cyril  does  not  charge  Nestorius  with  being 
at  fault  in  claiming  that  what  both  parties  agreed  in  calling 
"our  Lord's  body"  was  really  bread.  So  much  by  way 
of  negative  argument.  But  there  is  a  third  point  which 
will  carry  us  much  farther.  Cyril  does  charge  Nestorius 
with  teaching  "cannibalism."  A  better  rendering  of 
Cyril's  word  is  "anthropophagy."  He  charges  Nestorius 
with  teaching  that  in  the  Eucharist  Christians  ate  human 
flesh.  To  explain  such  a  charge  I  must  go  back,  and 
state  the  position  of  Nestorius  once  more.  Certainly 
his  presentation  of  the  theology  of  the  Incarnation  was 
a  most  unhappy  one.  But  we  ought  to  bear  in  mind  that 
he  was  impelled  to  it  by  motives  to  which  we  owe  a 
genuine  sympathy,  —  by  his  experience,  in  fact,  of  some 
unhealthy  exaggerations  and  wild  distortions  of  the 
truth,  which  he  was  beginning  to  hear  around  him,  and 
which  forced  themselves  upon  the  Church's  attention 
within  twenty  years  more,  calling  downi  the  Church's 
solemn  condemnation  upon  what  we  call  "the  Eutychian 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK    FATHERS  173 

heresy."  Nestorius  met  with  men  who  were  proclaiming 
that  our  Lord's  humanity  was  deified,  that  it  was  lost 
and  swallowed  up  in  Deity.  Against  such  teaching  the 
Church  was  called  to  fight  a  great  battle.  Nestorius  was 
honestly  trying  to  fight  that  fight,  demanded  so  im- 
peratively by  a  true  loyalty  to  our  Lord.  He  lost  the 
balance  of  revealed  truth,  and  so  lost  his  place  of  leader- 
ship, and  the  Church  had  even  to  fight  against  his 
exaggerations,  too.  But  we  cannot  understand  his  exag- 
gerations without  taking  account  of  those  of  the  other 
side.  In  his  eagerness  to  maintain  the  entire  humanness 
of  our  Lord's  humanity,  Nestorius  interpreted  the  phrase, 
"The  flesh  profiteth  nothing,"  of  our  Lord's  own  flesh. 
I  allow  myself  to  suppose  that  our  Lord  Himself  intended 
to  be  understood  as  saying  that  even  His  flesh  could  not 
profit  any  one  as  by  a  sort  of  magic  power,  apart  from  a 
spiritual  action  in  the  receiver  and  a  spiritual  union  with 
Himself.  But  Nestorius  seems  to  have  gone  farther, 
and  to  have  made  out  that  our  Lord's  human  nature  was 
not  life-giving  at  all,  even  as  ministered  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  and  received  by  the  responsive  spirit  of  man.  At 
any  rate,  so  Cyril  understood  him,  and  Cyril  raged 
against  him  accordingly.  Nestorius  plainly  held  that 
Christians  did  not  receive  our  Lord's  natural  flesh  in  the 
Eucharist.  The  bread  was  changed  so  as  to  become  a 
body  for  our  Lord,  but  it  was  not  changed  from  the  ovala 
of  bread  to  the  ovaia  of  flesh.  Cyril  does  not  blame 
him  for  that  teaching.  But  Nestorius  insists  that  our 
Lord's  embodiment,  whether  in  the  natural,  or  in  the 
sacramental,  order,  is  so  entirely  human  that  it  has  no 
power  to  give  life.  Cyril  condemns  that  idea  as  utterly 
shocking,  but  be  it  observed,  even  Cyril,  with  all  his 
tendency  to  look  for  any  stick  to  beat  a  dog  with,  could 
not    possibly    have    charged    Nestorius    with    teaching 


174       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

"anthropophagy,"  unless  he  had  accepted  one  teaching  of 
Nestorius,  that  teaching  which  declares  that  the  bread 
which  our  Lord  calls  His  body  is  "bread,"  and  not  (in  its 
substance)  "flesh,"  as  being  really  the  teaching  of  the 
Church.  That  the  bread  which  is  our  Lord's  body  is  of 
the  nature  of  bread,  and  not  of  the  nature  of  flesh,  and 
yet  may  perfectly  justly  be  called,  and  ought  to  be  called, 
"the  body  of  Jesus  Christ,"  is  the  teaching  of  Nestorius 
and  Cyril  alike.  It  is  common  ground.  When  Cyril 
denounces  Nestorius  for  his  doctrine  concerning  the 
Eucharist,  it  is  not  for  saying  that  the  sacramental  flesh 
of  Christ  is  bread,  —  that  would  give  no  ground  for  the 
"anthropophagy"  charge,  —  but  for  saying  that  the 
flesh  of  Christ  (to  whatever  object  that  name  may  be 
applied  by  our  Lord's  authority)  is  not  life-giving,  and  is 
only  the  flesh  of  a  man. 

As  giving  something  in  the  way  of  a  philosophy  of  the 
Eucharist,  Cyril's  comments  on  S.  Matt.  xxvi.  26  and 
S.  Luke  xxii.  19  may  well  be  studied.  The  passage  from 
the  Commentary  on  S.  Matthew  is  brief,  the  gist  of  it 
being  found  in  the  following  paragraph: 

"With  conclusive  utterance  He  said,  'This  is  My  body,'  and 
'This  is  My  blood,'  that  you  may  not  understand  the  things 
which  do  appear  to  be  a  type,  but  that  by  some  secret  action  of 
the  Omnipotent  God  the  things  referred  to  ^  are  truly  changed 
into  Christ's  body  and  blood,  and  we  partaking  of  them  receive 
the  Ufe-giving  and  sanctifying  power  of  the  Christ.  For  it  must 
needs  be  that  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  He  should  be 
mingled  in  us  after  a  divine  order,  as  by  our  bodies,  by  means 
of  BUs  holy  flesh  and  precious  blood,  which  we  have  had  for  a  life- 

*  S.  Cyril's  phrase  is  ra  irapevjjveyniva,  which  seems  to  mean  "the 
things  put  forward,"  "the  things  adduced."  "The  things  which  have 
been  offered  "  would  forlainly  be  Trpoatvrivtyn'a>a.  He  uses  rd  wpoupjiixtfa 
in  a  similar  way,  a  little  above. 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK   FATHERS  175 

giving  blessing,  as  in  bread  and  wine,  that  we  should  not  shudder 
at  seeing  flesh  and  blood  laid  out  on  holy  tables  in  churches. 
For  God,  condescending  to  our  infirmities,  sends  a  power  of  life 
into  the  elements  and  translates  them  into  an  efficacy  which 
proceeds  from  His  own  life.^  And  doubt  not  that  this  is  true, 
when  He  says  clearly,  'This  is  My  body'  and  'This  is  My 
blood,'  but  rather  receive  with  faith  the  word  of  the  Saviour, 
for  being  Truth,  He  does  not  lie."  ^ 

The  corresponding  passage  from  the  Commentary  on 
S.  Luke  is  very  long,  and  I  cannot  give  space  to  it  here. 
It  may  be  said  that  neither  the  passage  just  given,  nor 
the  companion  passage  from  the  Commentary  on  S.  Luke, 
gives  anything  which  bears  upon  my  present  enquiry  in 
a  positive  way.^  I  quite  acknowledge  the  point.  But 
I  do  claim  that  these  passages  are  of  real  value  negatively. 
The  great  Alexandrian  is  undertaking  to  explain  our 
Lord's  words  of  definition  of  His  sacrament,  so  far  as 
they  can  be  explained,  and  he  does  not  say  one  word 
about  the  heavenly  body  being  present  on  the  earthly 

'  The  Greek  here  is  avyKaOicTTaneuos  yap  6  Qedi  rals  rifxerepaii 
aadevtlais,  €vlri<n  rots  irpoKei^ikvois  Swa/iiv  fw^s,  Kal  peOicrTrjati'  auri 
TTpoj  tvkpyeiav  t^s  kavrov  fw^s:  It  is  to  be  observed  that  bvvapiv  and 
kvepyeiav  are  both  without  the  article.  So  are  aupa  and  alpa  in  the 
phrase  which  I  have  translated  "Christ's  body  and  blood"  above.  The 
thought  is  that  the  elements  are  changed  into  something  which  has  the 
character  of  body,  and  something  which  has  the  character  of  blood, 
belonging  to  Christ,  in  fact,  into  a  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

2  P.  G.  72,  452,  453. 

'  When,  for  example,  Cyril  speaks  of  a  power  of  life  being  sent  into 
the  elements,  there  is  nothing  to  show  whether  that  power  of  life  is  a 
gift  of  our  Lord's  human  life,  reaching  out,  as  it  were,  from  His  heavenly 
body,  and  taking  to  itself  a  new  embodiment,  or  a  gift  of  the  heavenly 
body  itself.  The  most  that  can  be  said  is  that  the  careful  omission  of 
the  articles  in  sundry  Greek  phrases,  where  English  translators  as  care- 
fully put  them  in,  may  seem  to  lend  some  measure  of  support  to  my 
suggested  interpretation. 


17G       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

altar.  He  does  not  deal  with  the  diflBculty  —  perfectly 
easy  to  deal  with,  some  of  my  brethren  will  tell  me,  but 
certainly  requiring  to  be  dealt  with  —  as  to  how  our 
Lord's  body  can  be  in  heaven  and  on  a  thousand  altars 
at  the  same  moment  of  time.  But  this  teacher  does 
point  to  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucharist  as  being 
worthy  to  be  called  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord, 
and  he  recognizes  that  there  is  a  difficulty  involved  in 
such  a  naming.  For  that  difficulty  he  has  an  answer 
ready.  It  is  not  that  the  elements  are  called  our  Lord's 
body  and  blood,  though  they  are  not  really  so,  because 
the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  are  really  there.  S. 
Cyril's  answer  seems  to  be  rather,  "These  elements  are 
really  that  which  we  are  taught  to  call  them,  because 
God  sends  into  them  a  power  of  life." 

With  so  much  of  comment  I  turn  to  Cyril  the  con- 
troversialist, presenting  first  the  passage  (from  the 
fourth  of  his  five  books  Against  Nestorius)  in  which  he 
charges  Nestorius  with  teaching  anthropophagy.  He 
first  quotes  Nestorius  as  commenting  on  our  Lord's 
words  (S.  John  vi.  53),  "Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son 
of  Man,  and  drink  His  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you," 
and  as  saying  that  those  who  heard  Him  "endured  not 
the  loftiness  of  the  revelation.  They  thought  in  their 
ignorance  that  He  was  introducing  anthropophagy." 
Cyril  catches  at  that  word,  and  pounces  upon  his  opponent 
on  this  wise : 

"  Then  how  is  the  proposition  not  plain  anthropophagy?  And 
in  what  fashion  can  the  mystery  be  made  out  to  be  lofty  any 
longer,  except  we  declare  the  Word  that  proceedeth  from  God  the 
Father  to  have  been  sent,^  and  acknowledge  the  particular  manner 

^  Nestorius  interpreted  "As  My  Father  hath  sent  Me,  even  so  send 
I  you"  (S.  John  xx.  21)  as  referring  to  the  Man  Jesus,  and  not  to  the 
Divine  Word. 


A.D.  381-431:   GREEK   FATHERS  177 

of  the  sending  to  be  that  of  the  Incarnation?  For  then,  and 
only  then  [Greek,  rore  yap  Tore]  shall  we  see  the  flesh  that  was 
united  to  Him  availing  to  quicken  us  to  life,  and  [that  flesh] 
not  as  the  flesh  of  some  other  person,  but  only  because  it  has  been 
made  His  own,  who  avails  to  quicken  all  things.  For  if  fire,  the 
very  fire  we  know  by  our  senses,  communicates  the  power  of  the 
natural  force  which  belongs  to  it  to  the  materials  with  which  it 
would  seem  to  be  associated,  and  changes  even  water  also,  which 
is  cold  by  nature,  into  that  which  is  contrary  to  its  nature,  and 
makes  it  warm,  what  wonder  is  it,  and  should  it  be  held  a  thing 
incredible,  if  the  Word  that  is  from  God  the  Father,  being  Life 
by  nature,  showed  forth  the  flesh  united  to  Him  as  a  quickening 
power?  For  it  is  His  own  flesh,  and  not  the  flesh  of  some  other 
person,  who  is  regarded  as  apart  from  Him,  and  is  just  one  of 
us.  But  if  you  abandon  the  mystical  and  true  union  of  God  the 
Word  with  the  body  that  is  quickening,  and  utterly  disjoin  the 
body  from  the  Word,  how  can  you  prove  it  to  be  quickening? 
For  who  was  He  who  said,  'He  that  eateth  My  flesh,  and  drinketh 
My  blood,  dwelleth  in  Me,  and  I  in  him'?  If  it  be  some  one  of 
man's  sort,  and  if  it  be  not  rather  that  the  Word  of  God  has  been 
made  like  us,  the  thing  that  is  done  is  man-eating,  and  our  par- 
ticipation is  absolutely  without  profit.  For  I  hear  Christ  Him- 
self saying,  'The  flesh  profiteth  nothing;  it  is  the  Spirit  that 
quickeneth.'  For  as  regards  its  own  nature,  the  flesh  is  mortal, 
and  in  no  wise  will  it  give  life  to  others,  having  the  disease  of 
mortality  in  itself.  But  if  you  say  that  it  is  the  own  body  of  the 
Word  Himself,  why  these  portentous  and  vain  fables?  Why 
contend  that  not  the  Word  of  the  Father  was  sent  Himself,  but 
some  other  instead  of  Him,  that  is,  a  visible  being,  or  His  flesh? 
Whereas  the  divinely  inspired  Scripture  everywhere  proclaims 
one  Christ,  strongly  asserting  that  the  Word  became  Man  with 
us,  and  defining  herein  the  tradition  of  the  true  faith."  ^ 

Nestorius   and   Cyril  agreed   in  these   two   points,  — 
first,  that  human  flesh,  even  the  flesh  of  our  Lord,  could 

^  Adv.  Nestorium  IV.  5,  Patrol.  Graeca  Ixxvi.  189,  192;  Pusey,  655. 


178       THE  EUCHAIUSTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

not  be  life-giving  in  ilself,^  and  second,  that  those  who 
came  to  be  associated  with  our  Lord's  flesh  did  receive 
life  from  that  association.  Their  difference  lay  in  this, 
that  Nestorius  said  that  our  Lord's  Divinity  gave  life 
through  a  partnership  with  a  human  body,  which  body 
was  not  really  His  own  after  all,  but  only  the  body  of 
His  human  partner,  and  Cyril,  on  the  other  hand,  insisted 
that  the  Eternal  Son  of  God  took  a  human  nature,  and 
made  it  absolutely  His  own,  so  that  His  human  body 
was  as  truly  and  entirely  His  body.  His  own  body,  and 
no  other  person's  body,  as  your  body  is  your  body,  and 
mine  is  mine.  So  Cyril  is  constantly  pressing  upon  men 
that  the  body  of  our  Lord  is  an  "o^vti  body"  (aco/za  tdtov) 
of  the  Divine  Word.  But  even  while  Cyril  is  looking 
eagerly  for  something  with  wliich  he  may  reproach  Nes- 
torius, and  for  something,  anything,  whereby  he  may 
make  Nestorius  to  be  abhorred,  he  never  finds  any  fault 
with  Nestorius  for  saying  that  what  we  receive  in  the 
Eucharist  is  bread  and  wine.  He  never  thinks  of  charging 
Nestorius  with  believing  in  a  "real  absence."  The  only 
point  of  difference  between  them  as  to  the  Eucharist  is 
that  Nestorius  thought  participation  in  the  Eucharist 
made  Christians  to  be  partners  with  a  man,  who  in  his 
turn  was  a  partner  with  God,  and  Cyril  stormed  at  this 
strange  idea,  and  said  that  it  was  truly  a  bringing  in  of 
man-eating.  It  follows  that  when  Cyril  lays  such  stress, 
as  he  often  does,  on  our  receiving  in  the  Eucharist  "the 
own  body  of  the  Word,"  he  is  not  contrasting  our  Lord's 

*  So  Cyril  speaks  in  his  book,  De  Recta  Fide  ad  Theodosium,  38:* 
"Shall  I  not  confess  that  the  flesh  from  the  earth  had  in  its  own  nature 
no  power  to  give  life?  How,  then,  tell  me,  is  the  flesh  life-giving?  Or 
how  can  that  of  earth  be  understood  to  be  of  heaven,  too?  I  say,  By 
union,  the  union  with  the  Living  Word  from  heaven." 

*  P.  0.  7G,  1192. 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK    FATHERS  179 

body  with  bread,  as  all  modern  readers  are  inclined  at 
once  to  assume,  but  rather  contrasting  our  Lord's  own 
body  with  the  body  of  some  other  person,  a  man,  Jesus, 
supposed  to  be  taken  into  partnership  with  the  Word. 
I  shall  proceed  to  give  some  brief  illustrations  of  this 
habit  of  Cyril's  mind  from  other  controversial  writings 
of  his.  Much  more  may  be  found  in  the  fifty  pages 
which  Dr.  Pusey  devotes  to  S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  in  his 
Catena  (Pusey,  pp.  614-664). 

From  Cyril's  Twelve  Anathemas  against  Nestorius  I 
take  the  Eleventh  Anathema,  and  Cyril's  later  explana- 
tion of  the  Anathema. 

Anathema  XI 

"If  any  one  confesses  not  that  the  flesh  of  the  Lord  is  life- 
giving,  and  that  it  is  the  own  flesh  of  the  Word  which  is  from 
God  the  Father,  but  says  that  it  is  of  some  other  than  He,  joined 
to  Him  in  dignity,  that  is,  having,  as  it  were,  an  indwelling  only, 
and  [confess]]  not  rather  that  it  is  Hfe-giving,  as  we  have  said, 
because  it  is  become  an  own  flesh  of  the  Word  which  can  quicken 
all  things,  let  him  be  anathema." 

Explanation  of  the  above  Anathema 

"We  celebrate  the  holy  and  life-giving  and  bloodless  sacrifice 
in  our  Churches,  not  believing  the  offering  to  be  the  body  of  one 
of  us,  and  of  a  common  man,  likewise  also  the  precious  blood, 
receiviag  them  rather  as  being  the  own  body  and  also  blood  of 
Him  who  quickeneth  all  tilings.  For  common  flesh  cannot 
quicken,  and  the  Saviour  Himself  witnessed  tliis,  saying,  'The 
flesh  profiteth  notliing,  it  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth.'  For 
since  it  became  the  own  flesh  of  the  Word,  it  is  so  understood, 
and  is  quickening,  according  as  the  Saviour  Himself  saith,  'As 
the  Living  Father  hath  sent  Me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father,  he 
that  eateth  Me,  even  he  shall  live  by  Me.'     Since  Nestorius  and 


180       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

they  who  agree  with  him  do  ignorantly  destroy  the  power  of  the 
mystery,  therefore,  and  reasonably,  this  is  anathema."  * 

So  also  in  the  Defense  against  Orestes,  Prefect  of 
Alexandria,  we  find  this  sentence,  —  "We  say  that  it 
[^our  Lord's  flesh]  became  the  own  body  of  the  Word, 
and  not  of  some  man,  conceived  of  as  Christ  and  Son, 
separate  and  distinct  from  Him."  Cyril's  emphasis  on 
this  phrase  "own  body,"  is  constantly  directed  against 
the  Nestorian  idea  of  a  body  of  some  man.  Of  course,  if 
the  modern  student  approaches  such  passages  with  the 
modern  pre-supposition,  that  "the  own  body  of  our 
Lord,"  or  even  "an  own  body  of  our  Lord,"  cannot  possi- 
bly mean  anything  but  our  Lord's  natural  body,  in 
which  He  reigns  in  heaven,  then  such  passages  —  and 
there  are  many  of  them  —  will  furnish  overwhelming 
evidence  that  Cyril  held  one  of  the  modern  views.  Just 
so,  if  any  student  approaches  the  language  of  the  Fathers 
with  a  pre-supposition  that  when  a  writer  says  that  our 
bread  and  wine  are  made  to  become  the  body  and  blood 
of  our  Lord,  that  writer  must  intend  to  support  the 
modern  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  such  a  student 
can  find,  nay,  must  find,  Transubstantiation  written 
manifoldly  across  the  pages  of  early  Christian  Literature. 
But  both  these  pre-suppositions,  common  as  they  are  in 
difi'erent  quarters,  are  thoroughly  unreasonable.  All 
Christian  thought  in  the  first  five  Christian  centuries 
identified  the  element  of  bread  in  the  Eucharist  with 
our  Lord's  body,  and  the  element  of  wine  with  His  blood. 
At  least,  that  is  what  I  have  been  maintaining  in  these 
Lectures,  and  what  I  deeply  believe.  The  consecrated 
bread  was  to  one  of  those  early  believers  just  as  much 

*  The  Anathema  and  the  Explanation  of  the  Anathema  may  be 
found  in  the  Palrologia  Gracca  76,  309,  311.  The  above  quotations  are 
given  in  Pusey,  {jp.  CGI,  6C£. 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK   FATHERS  181 

our  Lord's  body  as  the  very  body  of  His  natural  flesh. 
If  it  be  granted  that  my  explanation  of  the  language  of 
such  men  as  Augustine  and  Jerome  and  Chrysostom  is  a 
possible  one,  treating  the  eucharistic  body  of  our  Lord  as 
a  body  distinct  from  His  natural  body,  united  with  it, 
identified  with  it,  but  not  identical  with  it,  then  certainly 
the  language  of  Cyril  will  bear  the  same  construction. 

The  question  that  we  have  to  try  to  settle  may  be  put 
thus :  Does  Cyril  truly  identify  the  hallowed  bread  with 
our  Lord's  body,  really  meaning,  as  I  have  interpreted 
him,  that  our  Lord  takes  bread  for  a  body  and  wine  for 
blood?  or  does  Cyril  simply  call  bread  our  Lord's  body, 
and  wine  our  Lord's  blood,  because  in  each  case  our 
Lord's  body  and  His  blood  are  there  present,  and  the 
majesty  of  that  presence  fills  the  mind  of  the  believer, 
as  if  the  great  inner  reality,  there  symbolized,  alone  were 
there?  As  tending  to  confirm  my  view  of  Cyril's  meaning, 
I  offer  his  comment  of  S.  John  xx.  16,  —  the  story  of  our 
Lord's  appearance  on  the  eighth  day:  ^ 

"Most  reasonably,  then,  do  we  in  the  churches  make  holy 
assemblies  on  the  octave.  And  if  I  may  speak  in  a  more  mystical 
manner,  the  thought  constraining  us  uncontrollably,  we  shut 
to  the  doors,  and  Christ  appears  to  us  all,  both  visibly  and 
invisibly,  invisibly  as  God,  and  visibly  again  in  the  body,  and 
He  permits  and  grants  us  to  touch  His  holy  flesh.  For  accord- 
ing to  the  grace  of  God  we  approach  to  the  participation  of  the 
mystical  Eucharist,  receiving  Christ  in  our  hands,  that  we  too 
may  firmly  believe  that  He  hath  truly  raised  His  own  Holy 
Temple." 

The  eucharistic  body  of  our  Lord,  according  to  S. 
Cyril,  is  something  that  we  can  see  and  touch. 

I  shall  give  one  more  example  of  Cyril,  again  offering 
something  in  the  way  of  a  philosophy  of  the  Eucharist, 
1  P.  G.  74,  725. 


182       THE  EUCIIARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

and  again  the  interest  will  be  chiefly  in  noting  what  he 
does  not  say.  It  is  drawn  from  the  Commentary  on  S. 
John,  where  he  is  considering  S.  John  xv.  1 :  ^ 

"Let  some  one  tell  us  the  cause,  and  come  and  teach  us  the 
power,  of  the  mystical  Eucharist.  For  it  comes  to  be  in  us  — 
for  what  reason?  (yherai.  yap  kv  rifilv  Sia  ri ;)  Is  it  not  as 
making  Christ  to  dwell  in  us  even  corporeally   (kuI  aunariKus) 

r  by  the  participation  and  communion  of  His  holy  flesh.''  Indeed 
I  think  that  I  speak  rightly.  For  Paul  writes  that  the  Gentiles 
were  made  fellow-members  of  one  body,  and  fellow-heirs,  and 
fellow-partakers  with  Christ.  How  were  they,  then,  shown  to 
be   fellow-members  of  a   bo<ly?     Because,   being  admitted   to 

/(^  partake  of  the  mystical  blessing,  they  are  become  one  body 
joined  to  Him,  just  exactly  the  same  as  each  one  of  the  holy 
Apostles.  For  why  did  he  call  liis  own  members,  yea,  the  mem- 
bers of  all  [Christians],  as  well  as  his  own,  the  members  of  Christ? 
For  he  writes, '  Know  ye  not  that  your  members  are  the  members 
of  Christ?  Shall  I  then  take  the  members  of  Christ,  and  make 
them  members  of  an  harlot?  God  forbid!'  But  the  Saviour 
Himself  says,  '  He  that  eateth  My  flesh,  and  driiiketh  My  blood 
dwelleth  in  Me,  and  I  in  him.'  For  here  it  is  sj>ecially  to  be 
observed  that  Christ  says,  that  He  shall  be  in  us,  not  by  a  certain 

?  relation  only,  such  as  is  entertained  through  the  affections,  but 
also  by  a  participation  of  His  nature  [^Kara  nkTt^iv  (^uo-i/cV].  For 
as,  if  one  mixeth  wax  with  other  wax,  and  mclteth  them  by 
means  of  the  fire,  there  resulteth  a  single  sometliing,  so  by  the 
participation  of  the  body  of  Christ  and  of  His  precious  blood,  we 
are  co-unite<l,  He  in  us,  and  we  in  Him.  For  in  no  other  way 
could  that  which  is  by  nature  mortal  be  made  living,  unless  it 
were  mixed  in  bodily  wise  with  the  body  of  Him  who  is  by  nature 
Life,  the  Only-begotten.  And  if  you  are  not  persuaded  by  my 
words,  give  credence  to  Christ  Himself,  crying,  'Verily,  verily, 

5-  I  say  unto  you.  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and 
drink  His  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.  Whoso  eateth  My 
flesh,  and  drinkelh  My  bloo<l,  hath  eternal  life;  and  I  will  raise 

»  P.  G.  7i,  341,  344. 


A.D.  381-431:    GREEK   FATHERS  183 

him  up  at  the  last  day. '  You  hear  now  Himself  plainly  declaring 
that  unless  we  have  eaten  His  flesh  and  drunk  His  blood,  we  have 
not  in  ourselves,  that  is,  in  our  own  flesh  Zei>  Tjj  idiq.  (rapKl"], 
eternal  life.  But  eternal  life  may  be  conceived,  and  very  justly 
conceived,  as  the  flesh  of  Him  who  is  Life,  that  is,  of  the  Only- 
begotten." 

The  closing  thought  seems  to  be  that  the  life  which  is 
eternal  may  be  regarded  as  an  embodiment  of  the  Eternal 
Word.  No  human  life  could  have  eternal  quality  unless 
it  were  taken  up  and  worn  by  Him.  Thus  the  passage 
closes  on  a  note  of  non-literalness  which  shows  this  great 
Cyril  to  be  in  the  true  Alexandrian  succession  with  his 
master  Athanasius,  and  with  Origen  and  Clement  of  the 
centuries  before.  And  again  we  are  admonished  that 
with  the  great  Christian  teachers  of  early  time  the  non- 
literal  is  not  by  any  means  the  non-real. 


LECTURE  VII 

LATER  THEOLOGIANS  WHO  PRESS  THE  PARALLEL 
OF  THE  INCARNATION  AND  THE  EUCHARIST 

HAVING  now  presented,  in  my  last  five  Lectures, 
as  fair  and  faitliful  a  representation  as  I  was  able 
to  make  of  the  whole  testimony  of  the  Church's  WTiters 
in  regard  to  the  subject  we  are  considering  for  the  first 
four  hundred  years  of  the  Church's  life,  I  ask  leave  now 
to  present  the  testimony  of  four  writers  ^  lying  outside  of 
this  limit  of  time,  because  of  a  special  interest  that 
attaches  to  them.  Three  of  them  are  eminent  teachers, 
one  of  them  being,  indeed,  a  Bishop  of  Rome.  The  other 
is  anonymous,  which  makes  it  probable  that  he  was 
obscure.  They  all  insist  particularly  on  the  parallel, 
which  the  mind  of  the  Church  seems  to  me  always  to 
have  perceived,  between  the  mystery  of  the  Eucharist 
and  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  and  they  present 
that  parallel  in  a  deeply  significant  way.  Before  intro- 
ducing these  last  witnesses,  however,  I  want  to  put 
before  you  a  very  representative  passage  (very  repre- 
sentative, I  mean,  of  the  modern  attitude  of  mind)  from 
Dr.  Darwell  Stone's  History,  I.  98. 

"In  the  period  now  under  review,"  he  says,  speaking  of  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  "there  is  but  little  attempt  to  explain 
the  method  of  the  relation  of  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  to  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine.  The  writers  who  say 
anything   bearing   on   this   subject   may  be   divided   into   two 

•  One  of  them.  S.  John  of  Damascus,  must  be  reserved  to  Appendix  L 

184 


THE    INCARNATION   ANALOGY   LATER       185 

groups,  —  those  who  push  the  connection  between  the  Incarna- 
tion and  the  Eucharist  in  the  direction  of  emphasizing  the  abiding 
reahty  of  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine,  and  those  who  tend 
toward  aflfirming  a  change  in  the  elements  themselves." 

Two  things  in  this  Utile  paragraph  are  profoundly 
characteristic  of  the  difference  between  most  modern 
theology  and  all  ancient  theology.  First  there  is  the 
suggestion  of  some  relation  of  some  presence  of  our 
Lord's  body  and  blood  to  the  eucharistic  elements.  It  is 
quite  assumed  by  Dr.  Stone,  as  by  moderns  generally, 
of  course,  that  "our  Lord's  body  and  blood"  must  mean 
our  Lord's  natural  body  and  blood,  and  therefore  that  if 
there  is  any  presence  of  these  powers  in  the  Eucharist, 
the  Lord's  body  and  blood  will  constitute  one  fact,  and 
the  elements  will  constitute  another,  and  lesser  fact. 
But,  as  I  have  pointed  out  over  and  over,  ancient  theology 
never  defines,  nor  even  suggests,  any  presence  of  our 
Lord's  heavenly  body  under  sacramental  veils.  It 
always  identifies  the  consecrated  elements  themselves 
with  our  Lord's  body  and  blood.  "Body"  is  its  name, 
and  its  only  name,  for  the  hallowed  bread.  "Blood" 
is  its  name,  and  its  only  name,  for  the  hallowed  wine. 
In  the  case  of  either  element  there  is  one  fact,  not  two. 
There  is  really  just  one  fact,  which  may  be  regarded  under 
either  of  two  aspects.  The  element  of  bread,  for  instance, 
is  a  single  fact.  It  may  be  regarded  as  bread,  or  it  may 
be  regarded  as  our  Lord's  body.  You  may  call  it  either. 
You  may  not  be  allowed  to  distinguish  between  this 
bread  and  the  Lord's  body  which  it  has  come  to  be,  as 
if  the  bread  were  one  thing,  and  the  body  another.  With 
the  utmost  respect  for  a  student  who  seems  to  me  to 
have  in  general  a  rare  gift  for  representing  justly  the 
workings  of  other  men's  minds,  even  of  minds  differing 
much  from  his  own,  I  must  here  take  leave  to  criticize. 


186       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

I  must  declare  my  deep  conviction  that  no  ancient  Chris- 
tian could  have  understood  what  a  theologian  was  trying 
to  say  who  used  that  so  utterly  modern  phrase,  —  "the 
relation  of  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
to  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine." 

My  second  criticism  is,  that  it  is  wholly  characteristic 
of  modern,  as  distinguished  from  ancient,  theology,  to 
find  any  opposition,  or  even  any  difference  between 
"emphasizing  the  abiding  reality  of  the  elements"  and 
"aflBrming  a  change  in  the  elements."  Why,  those  two 
things  go  together  constantly  in  ancient  theology.  The 
modern  mind  is  in  the  habit  of  assuming  that  if  the 
elements  in  the  Eucharist  are  to  suffer  any  great  and 
glorifying  change,  they  must  be  changed  into  our  Lord's 
natural  body  and  blood,  or  into  vehicles  of  our  Lord's 
natural  body  and  blood.  The  Roman  theologian  follows 
the  former  of  these  lines  of  thought.  Of  course,  he  has 
no  patience  with  the  idea  that  the  bread  and  wine  remain 
as  bread  and  wine,  and  writers  who  indicate  such  a 
belief  must  by  him  be  condemned  or  explained  away. 
The  Anglican  theologian  of  the  School  of  Dr.  Stone  takes 
the  other  line.  He  holds  that  the  elements  are  changed 
into  vehicles  of  our  Lord's  body  and  blood,  and  then 
the  great  realities  which  they  contain  and  convey  so  fill 
the  mind  of  the  believer  that  in  looking  at  the  bread  he 
sees  nothing  but  the  body  of  the  Lord.  He  says  con- 
fidently that  our  Lord  Himself  calls  the  visible  things 
of  this  sacrament  by  the  names  of  the  invisible  things. 
And  yet  the  pious  modern  Anglican  of  the  Oxford  School 
does  not  really  in  his  devout  heart  call  bread  and  wine 
our  Lord's  body  and  blood.  He  is  acutely  aware,  at 
every  moment,  of  the  difference  between  the  sacramental 
elements  and  that  which  he  regards  them  as  conveying. 
He  does  not  think  that  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine 


THE  INCARNATION  ANALOGY  LATER        187 

are  really  changed  at  all  in  their  essential  nature.  And 
so  when  he  is  a  man  of  Dr.  Stone's  acuteness  of  perception, 
and  unflinching  honesty  in  recognition,  of  facts  of  thought, 
he  has  to  acknowledge  a  difference  of  tone  between  him- 
self and  the  Fathers  who  dwell  on  the  material  elements 
of  the  Eucharist  as  really  being  changed,  so  as  to  be  — 
really  to  be  —  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord.  Here 
again,  therefore,  I  must  express  my  deep  conviction  that 
ancient  theology  could  have  seen  no  theological  difference 
between  two  common  ways  of  looking  at  the  same  thing, 
—  the  way  of  affirming  the  abiding  reality  of  the  bread 
and  wine  and  the  way  of  affirming  the  glorious  trans- 
formation of  them  to  be  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord. 
I  must  insist  that  Dr.  Stone's  "two  groups"  of  theologians 
are  not  really  distinct  enough  to  constitute  two  species 
of  the  genus  "theologian."  All  those  who  press  the 
analogy  of  the  Incarnation  assure  us  that  the  elements 
are  made  to  be  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.  All 
those  who  say  that  the  elements  are  "changed"  into 
something  give  evidence,  nevertheless,  that  the  change 
which  they  have  in  mind  is  not  a  change  of  substance, 
but  a  change  of  quality.  He  who  from  a  poor  man, 
without  rank  or  following,  becomes  a  king,  is  greatly 
changed,  and  in  fact,  trans-made;  but  he  remains  a  man, 
even  as  he  was  before.  Between  those  who  dwell  most 
on  the  identity  and  those  who  dwell  most  on  the  change 
there  is  no  room  for  real  difference  of  opinion. 

With  so  much  of  introduction  I  shall  present  my  re- 
maining witnesses  to  the  eucharistic  tradition  of  the 
Church  of  Christ. 


188       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 


Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrrhus  (a.d.  393-458) 

The  first  that  I  shall  name  is  one  of  the  most  interesting 
and  attractive  figures  of  the  fifth  century,  Theodoret, 
Bishop  of  Cyrrhus  in  the  Euphrates  valley  for  some 
thirty-five  years,  from  the  year  423  to  458.  By  nature  a 
man  of  peace,  he  lived  to  see  the  Church  shaken  awfully 
by  the  strife  of  two  contending  parties,  —  a  sort  of 
Broad  Church  party  whose  extreme  mistakes  were  repre- 
sented by  the  heresy  of  Nestorius,  and  a  sort  of  High 
Church  party,  whose  extreme  mistakes  were  represented 
by  the  heresy  of  Eutyches.  Himself  a  son  of  Antioch, 
and  of  the  Antiochene  theological  school,  he  was  in 
sympathy  with  Nestorius  at  the  beginning  of  that  dreadful 
strife,  and  was  inclined  to  look  with  suspicion  on  every- 
thing that  came  from  Alexandria,  and  particularly  from 
the  great  and  overbearing  Archbishop  Cyril.  It  would 
seem,  too,  that  at  times  Theodoret  really  took  the  wrong 
side  in  the  controversies  of  the  day,  and  for  a  time  em- 
braced opinions  that  could  not  be  entirely  cleared  from 
the  charge  of  heresy.  But  when  the  storm  cleared,  the 
saintly  Bishop  of  Cyrrhus  was  found  having  "peace  at 
the  last,"  planted  with  firm  feet  and  clear  vision  on  the 
orthodox  side.  If  he  made  mistakes,  and  sometimes 
fought  against  real  champions  of  the  faith,  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  the  dangers  which  disturbed  and  alarmed  him 
were  real  dangers.  It  was  because  he  saw  the  evil  which 
flowered  presently  in  the  Eutychian  delusion  threatening 
the  Church  that  he  was  so  far  thrown  off  his  balance  for 
a  while  as  to  be  entangled  in  the  Nestorian  misunder- 
standings. But  he  recovered  a  true  balance  at  last,  and 
was  received  in  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (a.d.  451)  as 
an   orthodox   bishop.     Canon   Bright   describes   him   as 


THE  INCARNATION  ANALOGY  LATER        189 

"facile  princeps  among  his  brethren  for  varied  learning," 
and  adds  that  his  warmth  of  heart  "enables  us  to  feel 
towards  him  as  (S.  Augustine  excepted)  we  can  hardly 
feel  towards  any  of  his  contemporaries  in  East  or  West." 

In  the  last  decade  of  his  life  this  great  man  wrote  three 
dialogues,  in  which  he  represented  an  orthodox  believer 
as  arguing  with  a  follower  of  Eutyches.  Orthodoxus  and 
Eranistes  are  the  names  which  he  gives  to  his  speakers. 
An  epavo^  was  a  sort  of  club-feast  or  picnic,  to  which  a 
number  of  persons  contributed.  Eranistes,  then,  does  not 
mean  "a  beggar,"  as  some  have  said,  but  rather  "a 
picnic  theologian,"  a  person  whose  feast  of  reason  has 
not  a  well-ordered  bill  of  fare,  but  consists  of  scraps 
brought  together  from  various  sources,  and  not  sys- 
tematized. The  title  given  to  his  Dialogues  by  Theo- 
doret  himself  is  Eranistes,  or  Polymorphus,  and  the  word 
Polymorphus,  "of  many  forms,"  seems  to  be  meant  to 
convey  the  idea  of  a  man  who  keeps  changing  his  shape 
likiQ  Proteus  in  the  fable,  a  man  incapable  of  consistency. 
Picnic  Theology,  or  the  Chameleon  Student  would  repre- 
sent Theodoret's  idea  to  an  English-speaking  enquirer 
of  our  day.  In  both  the  first  and  the  second  of  these 
dialogues  reference  is  made  to  the  Church's  accepted 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  as  throwing  light  on  the  doctrine 
of  the  Incarnation. 

Two  points  are  to  be  noted  before  we  approach  the 
study  of  these  passages. 

1.  The  two  parties  regard  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist 
as  something  about  which  there  is  general  agreement. 
It  can  be  appealed  to  to  settle  disputed  questions. 

2.  The  two  parties  agree  in  finding  a  suflScient  analogy 
between  the  eucharistic  Presence  of  our  Lord  and  His 
Incarnation,  so  that  the  one  may  be  expected  to  throw 
light  on  the  other. 


190       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

When  I  say  that  both  parties  agreed,  I  mean,  of  course 
that  Tlieodorct  thought  that  they  agreed.  He  was  launch- 
ing an  argument  which  he  thought  to  be  strong  in  itself 
and  appealing  to  the  people  who  were  ensnared  by  the 
arguments  of  Eutyches  and  his  followers.  Perhaps 
Theodoret  exaggerated  the  amount  of  agreement  among 
theologians,  but  certainly  he  knew  the  mind  of  the  theo- 
logians of  his  day  particularly  well.  He  represents  both 
parties  as  appealing  to  the  analogy  of  the  Incarnation, 
—  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  he  is  combating  arguments 
which  he  had  really  known  Eutychians  to  make,  —  and 
he  represents  both  parties  as  holding  that  there  is  a 
tremendous  change  in  the  elements  as  the  result  of  the 
consecration.  There  appears  no  ground  for  suggesting 
that  one  party  was  pressing  the  Incarnation  analogy  and 
the  other  party  the  sacramental  change.  I  shall 
present   the   passage   from  the  Second  Dialogue  first. 

"Orthodoxus.  Tell  mc  now:  the  mystic  symbols  which  are 
offered  to  God  by  those  who  perform  priestly  rites,  —  of  what 
are  they  symbols? 

Eranistes.     Of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord. 

Orth.     Of  that  which  is  really  a  body?  or  not?  ^ 

Eran.   Of  that  wliich  is  really  a  body. 

*  I  must  here  call  attention  to  a  slip  in  translation  in  Dr.  Stone's 
"  History,"  I.  99.     He  makes  Orthodoxus  say, 

"Is  it  really  the  body?  or  is  it  not?" 

But  besides  the  fact  that  Theodoret's  phrase,  rov  ovrwi  auixaroi,  ^  oi', 
requires  the  translation  given  above,  it  may  be  observed  that  the 
argument  itself  requires  this  sense.  Eranistes  is  forced  to  acknowledge 
that  our  Lord's  body  now  in  heaven  is  still  a  real  body,  and  Orthodoxus 
then  hammers  in  the  point.  "Yes,  a  tj^pe  must  have  a  real  thing  for  its 
archetype." 

I  ought  to  add  that  Dr.  Stone's  translations  can  very  rarely  be  faulted. 
So  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge  of  such  matters,  their  general  fidelity  is  quite 
exceptional. 


THE  INCARNATION  ANALOGY  LATER        191 

Orih.  Very  good:  for  the  image  must  have  its  archetype. 
For  indeed  painters  imitate  nature,  and  depict  the  images  of 
things  that  are  seen. 

Eran.   True. 

Orth,  If  then  the  divine  mysteries  are  anti-types  of  that  which 
is  really  a  body,  then  the  body  of  the  Lord  is  even  now  a  body, 
and  it  has  not  been  changed  into  the  Divine  Nature,  but  filled 
with  a  divine  glory. 

Eran.  Opportunely  have  you  introduced  the  subject  of  the 
divine  mysteries,  for  from  this  I  shall  show  you  the  change  of 
the  Lord's  body  into  another  nature.  Answer  now  to  my 
questions. 

Orth.   I  will  answer. 

Eran.  Before  the  priestly  invocation,  what  do  you  call  the 
gift  that  is  being  offered? 

Orih.  One  should  not  say  it  openly,  for  it  is  likely  that  some 
who  are  uninitiated  are  present. 

Eran.   Let  your  answer  be  phrased  enigmatically. 

Orth.   The  food  that  is  made  of  a  kind  of  grain. 

Eran.   And  by  what  name  do  you  call  the  other  symbol  ? 

Orth.   This  name  is  common  too,  signifying  a  kind  of  drink. 

Eran.  But  after  the  consecration  how  do  you  entitle  these 
things? 

Orth,   Christ's  body  and  Christ's  blood,^ 

Eran.  And  do  you  really  believe  that  you  partake  of  Christ's 
body  and  Christ's  blood? 

Orth.   I  do. 

Eran.  As  then  the  symbols  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord 
are  one  thing  before  the  priestly  invocation,  and  after  the  invo- 
cation are  changed,  and  become  another  thing,  so  the  body  of 
the  Lord  after  His  taking  up  was  changed  into  the  Divine 
Substance. 

Orth.  You  are  caught  in  the  net  of  your  own  weaving.  For 
even  after  the  consecration  the  mystice  symbols  do  not  depart 

^  It  should  be  noted  that  o-wAia  and  al/na  are  both  without  the  article. 
"Something  that  has  the  quality  of  body,  and  belongs  to  Christ,  some- 
thing which  has  the  quality  of  blood,  and  belongs  to  Christ." 


192       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

from  their  own  nature,  for  they  remain  in  their  former  substance 
(oiffif)  and  figure  and  form;  and  they  are  visible  and  tangible, 
as  they  were  before.  But  they  are  regarded  as  being  just  what 
they  have  become,  and  they  are  believed  so  to  be,  and  they  are 
worshipped  as  being  just  what  they  are  believed  to  be.  Com- 
pare then  the  image  with  the  archetj-pe,  and  you  will  see  the 
likeness.  (For  the  type  must  be  like  the  reality.)  For  that 
body  [our  Lord's  heavenly  body  is  meant,  of  course]]  preserves 
its  former  form,  figure,  and  limitation,  and,  in  a  word,  the  sub- 
stance of  the  body;  but  after  the  resurrection  it  became  im- 
mortal and  superior  to  corruption,  it  was  counted  worthy  of  the 
seat  on  the  right  hand,  it  is  adored  by  every  creature,  as  being 
called  the  natural  body  of  the  Lord. 

Eran.  Yes;  but  the  mystic  symbol  changes  its  former  title, 
and  is  no  longer  named  with  the  name  by  which  it  was  called 
before,  but  is  entitled  'body.'  So  must  the  Reality  be  called 
God,  and  not  body. 

Orth.  You  seem  to  me  to  be  ignorant;  for  it  is  called  not  only 
body,  but  also  bread  of  life.  So  the  Lord  Himself  entitled  it; 
and  that  very  body  we  call  a  divine  body,  and  life-giving,  and 
the  body  of  our  Master  and  Lord,  teaching  that  it  is  not  common 
to  every  man,  but  is  peculiar  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is 
both  God  and  Man."  1 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  orthodox  speaker  does 
not  question  in  the  least  the  statement  that  after  the 
invocation  the  elements  are  changed,  and  become  another 
thing.  Nay,  he  repeats  it  in  his  owti  phrase,  —  "They 
are  regarded  as  being  just  what  they  have  become." 
They  have  been  turned  from  being  merely  one  thing 
to  being  also  another  thing.  Yet  they  have  lost  nothing. 
They  continue  to  be  that  "one  thing,"  exactly  as  they 
were  before.  In  stating  the  difference  of  the  two  speak- 
ers, Dr.  Stone  has  this  sentence: 

*  The  passage  may  be  found  in  Pat.  Gracca,  83,  165-1G8,  and  in 
translation  in  Nicenc  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Second  Series,  III.  200, 
and  (parts  of  it)  in  Puscy,  85  and  112,  and  Stone,  I.  99. 


THE  INCARNATION  ANALOGY  LATER        193 

"The  Eutychian  maintains  that  after  the  ascension  the  body  of 
Christ  is  changed  into  the  Divine  Nature,  so  as  to  be  no  longer 
a  human  body,  and  after  the  consecration  the  elements  are 
changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  so  as  to  be  no  longer 
bread  and  wine."     (Stone,  I.  101.) 

I  venture  to  suggest  that  the  last  part  of  Dr.  Stone's 
sentence  needs  modifying.  That  the  elements  were  so 
changed  as  to  be  "no  longer  bread  and  wine"  is  just 
what  the  Eutychian  did  not  say,  but  would  have  had  to 
say,  to  make  a  valid  argument.  Theodoret's  precise 
point  is  that  the  Eutychian  has  not  sl  valid  argument. 
Indeed  Theodoret  represents  his  Eutychian  as  having  a 
confused  mind.  This  poor  Eranistes  has  been  so  carried 
away  by  the  thought  of  the  wonderful  change  and  ex- 
altation of  the  eucharistic  elements  that  he  has  completely 
lost  sight  of  the  crucial  fact,  that  after  all  they  are  still 
bread  and  wine.  But  note  what  follows!  When  Ortho- 
doxus  reminds  him  of  that  part  of  the  accepted  doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  Christ,  Eranistes  does  not  tell  Orthodoxus 
that  he  is  wrong.  He  cannot  say  that.  He  is,  as  Ortho- 
doxus said,  fairly  caught  in  the  net  of  his  own  weaving. 
He  can  only  give  up  that  particular  point,  and  renew  his 
attempt  to  make  something  out  of  the  other  side  of  the 
truth,  taking  it  up  and  pressing  it  once  more.  At  least, 
says  Eranistes,  the  elements  are  now  called  by  a  greater 
name  than  they  ever  were  before.  Therefore  our  Lord's 
body  of  flesh  must  be  called  by  a  greater  name  than  it 
could  have  been  before. 

And  here  I  must  call  most  particular  attention  to  the 
nature  of  the  Eutychian  argument,  as  Eranistes  is  made 
to  state  it,  and  as  Orthodoxus  feels  obliged  to  meet  it. 
It  is  founded  on  an  analogy  between  the  two  miracles,  of 
the  Incarnation  and  the  Eucharist,  which  is  assumed  all 
through  by  both  parties,  without  being  mentioned  at  all. 


194       THE  EUCIIARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

It  is  part  of  the  subconscious  mind  (to  use  a  modern 
phrase)  of  both  parties.  What  is  true  of  the  Eucharist, 
they  think,  must  be  true  of  the  Incarnation,  and  vice 
versa.  At  least,  there  is  a  certain  Hkeness  in  the  two 
cases,  and  in  the  hues  of  that  hkeness  the  same  law  must 
operate  for  both.  I  offer  my  suggestion  —  the  only  one 
that  I  can  find  —  that  the  likeness  which  was  in  the 
mind  of  all  fifth-century  Christians  was  this:  In  the 
miracle  of  the  Incarnation  the  Eternal  Word  took  to 
Himself  flesh  for  a  body,  and  in  the  miracle  of  the  Eucha- 
rist the  Eternal  Word  took  to  Himself  bread  for  a  body, 
and  wine  to  be  for  a  certain  use  His  blood.  Then  (the 
argument  runs  naturally  on)  the  effect  of  the  touch  of 
His  Deity  must  be  the  same  in  the  one  miracle  as  in  the 
other.  That  is  the  line  of  argument,  it  seems  to  me, 
that  is  common  to  Ortliodoxus  and  Eranistes  in  the  dialogue. 
There  is  absolutely  no  difference  between  the  orthodox 
believer  and  the  heretic  as  to  their  holding  in  this  matter. 
They  hold  with  equal  eagerness  the  idea  of  analogy 
between  Incarnation  and  Eucharist.  They  hold  with 
equal  eagerness  that  the  elements  which  receive  union 
with  our  Lord  are  greatly  exalted  and  changed  thereby, 
while  yet  remaining  the  same  in  substance  and  form. 
But  without  such  an  analogy  as  I  have  just  suggested, 
there  is  no  reason  for  arguing  from  the  Eucharist  to  the 
Incarnation.  The  argument  is  senseless.  It  is  no  argu- 
ment at  all. 

I  proceed  to  the  promised  quotation  from  the  First 
Dialogue: 

"  Orthodox-US.   You  know  that  our  Lord  has  entitled  bread  His 
own  body. 

Eranistes.   I  know  it. 

Orth.   And  contrariwise.  He  has  called  His  flesh  wheat.* 
*  The  reference  is  to  S.  John  xii.  23,  24. 


THE  INCARNATION  ANALOGY  LATER        195 

Eran.  I  know  this  too,  for  I  have  heard  Him  saying,  'The 
hour  is  come  that  the  Son  of  man  should  be  glorified,'  and  'Ex- 
cept a  grain  of  wheat  fall  uito  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth  by 
itself  alone;  but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit.' 

Orth.  But  in  the  delivery  of  the  mysteries,  certainly.  He  called 
the  bread  body,  and  the  mixture  blood. 

Eran.   He  did  so  name  them. 

Orth.  But  then  with  reference  to  nature,  it  is  the  body  that 
should  be  called  body,  and  the  blood,  blood. 

Eran.   Confessedly. 

Orth.  But  our  Saviour,  for  His  part,  interchanged  the  names, 
and  has  put  upon  the  body  the  name  of  the  symbol,  and  upon 
the  symbol  the  name  of  the  body.  In  like  manner,  having 
named  Himself  Vine,  He  entitled  the  symbol  blood. 

Eran.  You  have  said  truly.  But  I  should  like  to  know  the 
cause  of  this  interchange  of  names. 

Orth.  The  object  is  plain  to  those  who  have  been  initiated 
into  the  things  of  God.  For  He  willed  that  those  who  partake 
of  the  divine  mysteries  should  not  give  their  attention  to  the 
things  seen,  but  through  the  exchange  of  the  names  believe  in 
the  transformation  that  has  come  from  the  grace.  For  He  who 
entitled  the  body  which  is  His  by  nature,  corn  and  bread,  and 
again  named  Himself  Vine,  has  also  honored  the  visible  symbols 
with  the  titles  of  body  and  blood,  not  changing  their  nature, 
but  adding  the  grace  to  their  nature."  ^ 

I  have  a  comment  to  add  to  this  quotation  also.  I 
ask  attention  to  the  fact  that  Theodoret  makes  his 
orthodox  speaker  present  in  close  parallel  the  language 
of  our  Lord  calling  Himself  a  vine,  and  the  language  of 
our  Lord  calling  wine  His  blood.  It  seems  plain  to  me 
that  Theodoret  was  a  non-literalist,  and  that  he  expected 

^  The  passage  may  be  found  in  Pat.  Graeca,  83,  56,  and  in  the  transla- 
tion in  Ante-Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Second  Series,  III.  168. 
Also  in  Pusey,  87;  Stone  I.  101.  Dr.  Stone  renders  "dignified  the  visible 
symbols  with  the  titles  of  the  body  and  the  blood"  [italics  mine]]. 


19G       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

any  other  theologian,  even  an  opponent  in  a  great  con- 
troversy, to  go  along  with  hira  in  that  hne  of  thought, 
as  a  matter  of  course.  I  ask  attention  also  to  the  com- 
bination of  a  distinct  statement  that  the  elements  are 
"transformed"  (nera^aWeLv  is  the  Greek  verb)  with 
another  distinct  statement  that  our  Lord  does  not  change 
their  nature,  but  adds  to  their  nature  "the  grace." 

What  does  Theodoret  mean  by  "the  grace"?  The 
Oxford  School  will  answer,  "The  Presence  of  our  Lord  in 
his  totality,  body,  blood,  soul  and  Divinity."  But  that 
Presence,  I  submit,  would  call  for  a  different  sort  of 
language.  That  Presence  would  not  make  the  bread 
and  wine  to  be  our  Lord's  body  and  blood,  but  to  be 
vehicles  of  His  body  and  blood.  According  to  that  view 
our  Lord  does  not  take  bread  to  be  His  body,  nor  wine 
to  be  His  blood.  He  has  no  need  of  any  body  beside 
His  body  natural.  Not  only  does  Theodoret,  like  the 
Fathers  before  him,  insist  that  the  bread  and  wine  are 
somehow  our  Lord's  body  and  blood,  and  never  speak  of 
them  as  containing  or  veiling  the  body  which  is  in  heaven, 
but  a  little  farther  on  in  the  dialogue  just  quoted  he  has 
this  passage: 

"Orthodoxies.  Of  what  do  you  understand  the  holy  food  to  be 
a  symbol  and  type.^  Of  the  Godhead  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ? 
or  of  His  body  and  blood? 

Eranistes.  Plainly  of  those  things  of  which  they  have  received 
the  names. 

Orth.   You  mean,  of  the  body  and  of  the  blood. 

Eran.   I  do. 

Orth.  You  have  spoken  like  a  lover  of  truth;  for  when  the 
Lord  took  the  symbol.  He  did  not  say,  'This  is  My  Divinity,' 
but  'This  is  My  body,'  and  again,  'This  is  My  blood';  and  in 
another  place,  'The  bread  which  I  will  give  is  My  flesh,  which 
I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world.'" 


THE  INCARNATION  ANALOGY  LATER        197 

Certainly  Theodoret  held  that  oui  Lord  gave  Himself 
in  His  Divinity  to  be  received  by  His  people  in  the  Eucha- 
rist. As  certainly  Theodoret  insists  that  the  bread  of 
the  Eucharist  is  made  to  be  His  body,  and  not  His  Divinity. 
Let  us  note  how  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  is  correlated 
to  our  Lord's  body  and  to  His  Divinity,  respectively,  in 
Theodoret's  view.  I  think  that  the  matter  may  be  put 
into  two  corresponding  statements  on  this  wise. 

1.  The  consecrated  bread  symbolizes  our  Lord's 
body,  according  to  this  teaching,  and  is  our  Lord's  body; 
but  there  is  no  suggestion  that  it  contains  our  Lord's 
body. 

2.  The  consecrated  bread  does  contain  (in  a  sense) 
our  Lord's  Divinity,  which  yet  cannot  be  contained;  but 
it  does  not  symbolize  our  Lord's  Divinity,  and  is  never 
said  to  be  our  Lord's  Divinity. 

No  theology,  then,  I  allow  myself  to  claim,  which 
puts  the  Lord's  body  and  the  Lord's  Divinity  into  the 
same  relation  with  the  eucharistic  elements  is  really  the 
theology  of  Theodoret. 

n 

Gelasius  I.,  Bishop  of  Rome 

The  second  of  my  supplemental  witnesses  is  a  Bishop 
of  Rome,  Gelasius  I.,  who  occupied  the  great  see  of  the 
West  from  a.d.  492  to  496.  It  is  not  good  history  to  call 
any  Bishop  of  Rome  a  "Pope,"  however  much  he  and 
many  other  bishops  may  have  been  called  by  that  name 
in  their  own  day,  before  the  coming  of  the  Forged  De- 
cretals. What  "pope"  means  to  our  ears  did  not  really 
exist  till  the  ninth  century.  But  certainly  Gelasius  was 
a  Roman  bishop  who  magnified  his  ofiice  with  really 
papal    pretensions.     His    chief    claim    on    the    Church's 


198       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

memory  is  in  his  book  of  offices,  the  Gelasian  Sacra- 
mentary,  but  he  has  also  laid  the  Church  under  obligation 
by  his  treatise,  if  it  be  his,^  on  The  Two  Natures  in  Christ, 
from  which  I  must  draw  a  really  striking  passage: 

"Certainly,  the  sacraments  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
received  by  us  arc  a  matter  belonging  to  the  realm  of  the  divine, 
because  we  are  indeed  made  partakers  by  them  of  the  Divine 
Nature;    and  yet  the  substance  or  nature  of  bread  and  wine 

'  I  may  mention  that  Roman  theologians  are  inclined  to  question  the 
authorship  of  this  treatise,  and  to  assign  it  to  an  obscure  Gelasius,  who 
was  Bishop  of  Cyzicus  in  Asia  Minor.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
treatise  is  not  only  mentioned,  but  actually  quoted  from,  as  a  work  of 
Gelasius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  by  S.  Fulgentius  of  Ruspe,  a  contemporary 
WTitcr,  it  seems  hardly  worth  while  to  go  into  the  arguments  for  rejecting 
the  Roman  authorship.  But  I  will  mention  one  of  them.  Several  Greek 
writers  are  quoted  in  this  Roman  book,  and  only  two  Latin  wTiters. 
Surely,  it  is  suggested,  the  author  must  have  been  an  Eastern  himself. 
It  is  commonly  replied  that  the  book  was  meant  for  circulation  in  the 
East,  to  give  the  great  authority  of  the  representative  see  of  the  West,  and 
by  implication,  of  the  Western  Church  generally,  to  the  contentions  of 
the  orthodox  party  in  the  sorely  divided  East.  Supporting  arguments 
drawn  from  great  authorities  in  former  times  would  with  Eastern  readers 
be  more  useful,  if  drawn  from  Eastern  soiu"ces.  But  I  wish  to  add  here 
a  conjecture  of  my  own,  —  I  have  not  seen  it  anywhere  put  forth,  — 
that  the  treatise  was  written  for  Gelasius  in  Greek  by  a  Greek  scholar 
in  his  employ,  and  sent  out  under  the  name,  and  with  the  approval,  of 
Gelasius,  a  somewhat  clumsy  translation  into  Latin  being  retained  to 
represent  the  treatise  in  the  West.  The  first  sentence  of  the  passage 
which  I  am  to  quote  is  clumsy  and  actually  ungrammatical  in  Latin, 
and  to  my  thinking  shows  plainest  signs  of  having  been  written  originally 
in  Greek.  "Sacramenta  quae  sumimus  corporis  et  sanguinis  Christi 
divini  res  est"  —  notice  the  plural  subject  and  singular  verb  —  is  a  very 
awkward  translation  of  some  such  Greek  phrase  as  ra  v4>  ij^Cov  \yj4)dtvTa 
HVffrripia  tov  cruiiards  re  Kal  tov  aifiaros  XptoroD  XPVf^^  <<'■'"'  fov  Otlov. 
The  loss  of  the  Greek  original  is  easily  accounted  for  by  the  increasing 
bitterness  of  the  Eastern  Churches  in  later  centuries  against  Bishops 
of  Rome.  But  certainly  the  Latin  quoted  above  is  a  translation  from 
Greek  by  a  literarj'  "hack." 


THE  INCARNATION  ANALOGY  LATER        199 

does  not  cease  to  be.  And  certainly  an  image  and  likeness  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  set  forth  in  the  celebration  of  the 
mysteries.  Therefore  it  is  shown  to  us  plainly  enough  that  we 
must  think  in  the  case  of  the  Lord  Christ  that  which  we  profess 
and  celebrate  and  receive  in  the  case  of  His  image.  Thus  as  the 
natures  pass  into  this,  that  is,  the  divine  substance,  by  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  while  yet  remaining  in  their  own 
proper  being,  they  show  that  that  principal  mystery  itself  [the 
mystery  of  the  Incarnation  is  meant,  of  course],  the  efficacy  and 
virtue  of  which  they  truly  present  ^  to  us,  remains  one  Christ, 
because  whole  and  real,  these  natures  of  which  He  is  made  up 
remaining  each  in  its  proper  being." 

The  Latin  is  crabbed,  and  the  text  needs  emending, 
to  make  sense;  but  what  the  writer  was  trying  to  convey 
is  beyond  question.  I  used  to  be  taught  in  my  student 
days,  as  nearly  as  I  can  now  recall,  that  the  idea  of  this 
passage  was  that  there  were  two  distinct  realities  in  the 
Eucharist,  —  the  material  element,  bread  or  wine,  on  the 
one  side,  the  heavenly  fact  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  on  the  other  side,  and  that  correspondingly  there 
were  in  the  Incarnation  two  distinct  realities,  the  human 
nature  and  the  Divine  Nature  of  our  Lord.  That  was 
supposed  to  be  the  fundamental  fact  of  the  comparison. 
I  do  not  see  that  Gelasius  does  say  that  thing  exactly. 
If  he  had  said  only  that,  it  would  have  been  open  to  a 
Eutychian  opponent  to  say:  "Oh!  yes.  You  are  quite 
right  in  asserting  that  there  is  a  likeness  between  the 
conditions  of  the  Incarnation  and  the  conditions  of  the 
Eucharist,  according  to  your  view,  which  likeness  is  not 
found  in  my  view.     I  consider  that  that  is  precisely  the 

^  The  Latin  word  is  representant,  which  is  used  for  making  things  to 
be  present  either  (1)  literally,  or  (2)  to  the  mind  of  some  person  or  persons 
interested.  I  use  the  word  "present"  in  English  as  having  the  same 
ambiguity,  while  "represent"  is  Avith  us  limited  to  meaning  (2).  I 
imagine  the  Greek  to  have  had  diro^aifet,  probably  in  sense  (1). 


200       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

fact  of  the  case.  The  conditions  of  the  Incarnation  and 
the  conditions  of  the  Eucharist  are  not  alike  in  that 
particular  point.     Why  should  they  be  alike?" 

No,  what  Gelasius  says  is,  first  and  foremost,  that  the 
elements  of  the  Eucharist  are  brought  into  such  a  relation 
to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  what  is  true  of  that  sacra- 
ment must  be  true  of  the  Incarnation,  also.  Gelasius  is 
laying  down,  be  it  observed,  what  he  regards  as  a  uni- 
versally accepted  proposition,  in  which  all  Catholic 
Christians  will  of  course  agree.  It  amounts  to  this,  if  I 
may  paraphrase  him:  the  elements  in  the  Eucharist  are 
taken  to  Himself  by  our  Lord,  as  He  took  a  body  to 
Himself  in  His  Incarnation.  It  is  clearly  shown  to  us, 
therefore,  that  we  must  think  of  the  Incarnation  as  we 
think  of  the  Eucharist.  What  happens  to  the  bread  and 
wine  in  passing  "into  the  Divine  Substance  "  must  be 
what  happens  to  the  body  of  our  Lord  in  passing  "into 
the  Divine  Substance."  It  is  the  same  experience  in 
both  cases.  The  i)articular  point  which  Gelasius  is 
essaying  to  prove  is  that  as  the  bread  and  wine  remain 
bread  and  wine,  so  the  human  body  of  flesh  remains  a 
human  body  of  flesh.  But  the  foundation  of  the  argu- 
ment, the  thing  which  Gelasius  is  here  offering  as  a 
commonplace  of  Catholic  theology,  is  that  our  Lord  is 
known  to  take  the  elements  of  the  Eucharist  into  pre- 
cisely such  a  union  with  Himself  as  that  union  into  which 
He  took  His  human  body  in  His  Incarnation. 

So  much  seems  to  me  quite  clear  and  certain  in  the 
teaching  of  Gelasius.  I  will  add  a  suggestion  which  is, 
I  acknowledge,  quite  conjectural  and  uncertain.  Our 
Latin  text  speaks  of  the  elements  as  passing  "into  the 
Divine  Substance."  What  can  Gelasius  be  supposed  to 
mean?  Surely,  it  is  not  at  all  a  natural  way  of  saying 
that  the  elements  i)ass  into  the  substance  of  our  Lord's 


THE  INCARNATION  ANALOGY  LATER        201 

body.  It  suggests  rather  some  such  phrase  as  writers 
on  the  Incarnation  have  been  wont  to  use,  hke  that  of  the 
Athanasian  Creed,  "taking  of  the  manhood  into  God." 
I  offer  my  suggestion  for  what  it  may  be  worth,  that  the 
Greek  author  who  prepared  the  message  of  Gelasius  to 
the  troubled  East,  wrote  here  the  words  els  ttjv  ddav 
xnrbcTaaiv.  We  know  that  Latin  writers  had  a  habit 
of  translating  vTroaraaLs  by  substantia,  and  that  they 
found  a  great  deal  of  difficulty  in  understanding  the 
use  of  virdarTaais  as  a  theological  word  by  Greek  writers. 
But  certainly  that  phrase  about  passing  "into  the  divine 
substance"  is  an  awkward  phrase,  whatever  interpreta- 
tion may  be  put  upon  it,  and  its  interpretation  must  be 
set  down  as  conjectural  rather  than  clear.  I  return 
to  my  main  point.  The  treatise  presses  the  idea  that 
our  Lord  takes  the  elements  of  the  Eucharist  to  Himself 
so  exactly  as  He  takes  the  body  of  His  Incarnation  that 
the  Church  must  argue  from  the  one  mystery  to  the 
other.  Such  seems  to  me  to  be  the  teaching  of  Gelasius, 
Bishop  of  Rome. 

Ill 

An  Unknown  Writer  of  the  Second  Half  of 
THE  Fifth  Century,  Author  of  an  Epistle  to 
Caesarius 

I  must  add  here  a  brief  passage  for  the  knowledge  of 
which  I  am  indebted  to  Dr.  Stone's  History.  It  comes 
from  a  letter  which  is  printed  with  the  works  of  S.  John 
Chrysostom,  because  it  is  ascribed  to  him  in  manuscripts. 
No  one  now  supposes  it  to  be  his,  but  there  is  no  trace 
of  the  real  author,  and,  in  fact,  the  Greek  original  is  lost. 
It  exists  only  in  a  Latin  version.  From  internal  evidence 
it  is  assigned  to  the  period  in  which  Gelasius  flourished. 


202       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

—  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century.  It  gives  another 
example  of  the  application  of  a  (confidently  assumed) 
parallel  between  the  Incarnation  and  the  Eucharist. 

"As  before  the  bread  is  consecrated  we  call  it  bread,  but 
after  the  grace  of  God  has  consecrated  it  through  the  agency  of 
the  priest  it  is  set  free  from  the  name  of  bread,  but  counted 
worthy  of  the  name  of  the  body  of  the  Lord,  although  the  nature 
of  bread  remains  in  it,  and  we  speak  not  of  two  bodies,  but  of  one 
body  of  the  Son,  so  in  this  case,  wlien  the  Divine  Nature  estab- 
lished itself  in  a  body,  the  two  natures  made  one  Son,  one 
Person."  ^ 

Here  is,  I  think,  the  same  view  of  the  Eucharist  as  in 
Theodoret  and  Gelasius.  The  nature  of  bread  remains 
after  the  consecration.  That  is  one  point.  But  then 
this  bread,  now  exalted  to  a  higher  usefulness,  is  "set 
free  from  the  name  of  bread,  but  counted  worthy  of  the 
name  of  the  body  of  the  Lord."  That  is  a  second  point, 
and  I  think  an  important  one.  I  have  said  over  and 
over  that  I  cannot  see  why  that  which  is  a  vehicle,  or  a 
veil,  for  our  Lord's  body  should  be  called  our  Lord's 
body,  nor  why  a  rev^elation  that  it  was  to  be  such  a 
vehicle,  or  veil,  could  not  have  been  made  in  much  plainer 
words.  Of  course,  I  know  that  many  devout  students, 
who  are  also  strong  and  clear  thinkers,  will  find  my 
argument  in  both  these  particulars  to  be  of  no  value. 
I  must  not  take  time  to  argue  the  same  point  over  again 
now.     I  will  only  say  that  this  author's  phrase  seems  to 

^  The  Latin  here  is  somewhat  remarkable,  preserving  as  it  does  a 
word  of  the  original  Greek  which  seems  to  have  struck  the  translator 
particularly:  "  Sic  et  hie,  Divina  tvidpvaaaiji,  id  est,  insidente  corpori 
Natura,  unum  Filiimi,  unam  Personam,  utraque  hacc  fecerunt."  It 
will  be  observed  that  "  Divina  insidente  Natura"  is  an  ablative  absolute 
translating  a  Greek  genitive  absolute.  Ilcncc  the  curious  combination, 
"  iyiSpixr&arjs,  id  est,  insidente." 


THE  INCARNATION  ANALOGY  LATER        203 

me  to  fit  more  easily  with  what  I  have  been  offering  as 
an  interpretation  of  patristic  thought  than  with  the 
theology  which  says  that  the  hallowed  bread  is  one 
entity,  and  the  body  of  our  Lord  another  entity. 

I  must  pass  to  the  third  point,  which  will  show  our 
author,  with  the  same  theology  of  the  Eucharist,  making 
a  different  application  of  the  Incarnation  parallel  from 
the  two  writers  last  studied.  He  is  turning  it  against 
the  opposite  heresy  from  that  which  they  were  attacking, 
and  he  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  so  strong  or  so  clear. 
He  uses  a  phrase  which  is  certainly  novel  (we  have  had 
to  travel  over  a  space  of  four  hundred  and  fifty  years,  to 
find  anything  of  the  sort),  and  certainly  noteworthy,  — 
"We  speak  not  of  two  bodies,  but  of  one  body  of  the 
Son."  What  shall  I  say  of  this  utterance?  Shall  I 
describe  it  as  a  new  view.''  Or  shall  I  call  it  only  a  new 
expression  of  the  same  teaching  with  which  we  have 
been  made  familiar?  And  then  it  will  be  pressed  upon 
me,  of  course,  that  /  do  "speak  of  two  bodies  of  the 
Son,"  and  represent  the  Fathers  as  so  speaking,  and  here 
comes  one  of  my  own  witnesses,  and  testifies  against  me. 
I  must  dispose  of  this  charge,  that  my  witness  contradicts 
me  flatly,  before  I  attempt  to  show  the  bearing  of  his 
phrase  upon  the  argument  against  the  followers  of  Nes- 
torius.  In  my  own  defense  my  answer  is  this:  I  have 
certainly  been  maintaining  in  every  one  of  my  Lectures, 
as  my  own  thought,  and  as  the  thought  of  the  whole  primi- 
tive Church,  that  the  eucharistic  body  of  our  Lord  is 
numerically  distinct  from  His  natural  body,  and  that 
in  that  sense  our  Lord  has  two  bodies,  nay  three,  for  there 
is  also  His  body  the  Church;  but  I  have  also  equally 
maintained,  as  my  own  thought,  and  as  the  thought  of 
the  whole  primitive  Church,  that  whatever  our  Lord 
takes  for  a  body  is  so  united  with  His  natural  body  as 


204       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

to  become  a  part  of  it,  and  to  be  identified  with  it.  In 
that  sense,  I  also  have  been  maintaining  that  our  Lord 
has  not  two  bodies,  but  one.  My  witness  does  not 
contradict  me,  unless  I  quite  misconceive  the  movement 
of  his  thought.^ 

But  what  is  our  author  trying  to  express?  Why  does 
he  take  the  trouble  to  mention  that  "we  speak  not  of 
two  bodies."  There  were  no  teachers  who  were  using 
any  such  phrase,  and  whom  he  was  anxious  to  oppose, 
surely.  He  is  appealing  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist 
as  a  doctrine  which  all  members  of  the  Church  hold  in 
common,  and  from  which,  therefore,  he  may  argue  with 
the  assurance  that  his  premises  will  be  granted.  Then 
it  must  be  that  his  only  reason  for  suggesting  that  we  do 
not  speak  of  "two  bodies"  is  precisely  that  we  are  dealing 
with  two  things  which  we  might  call  two  bodies,  but 
which  because  they  are  unified  in  the  holding  of  our 
Lord,  we  call  "one  body,"  after  all.  Is  this  not  so?  Let 
us  consider!  Our  author  is  arguing  against  the  heresy 
which  so  divides  our  Lord's  humanity  from  His  Divinity 
as  to  make  not  only  two  natures,  but  two  beings.  Now 
to  say  that  our  Lord's  glorified  body,  present  (in  one 
manner  of  being)  in  heaven,  and  present  (in  another 
manner  of  being)  on  the  altars  of  our  Churches,  is  one  and 
the  same  body,  would  not  help  in  the  least  to  show  that 
our  Lord's  Godhead  and  our  Lord's  humanity  made  up 
one  Person.  No!  The  argument  here  presented  requires 
that  we  should  see  two  things  which  are  genuinely  distinct, 
one  from  the  other,  brought  together  in  such  wise  that 
the  result  of  their  holding  is  one,  because  it  is  a  holding 
by  one  Divine  Person.  That  makes  a  real  argument 
from  analogy.     To  put  my  point  in  another  way,  I  will 

*  Compare  the  teaching  of  S.  Chrysostom  in  his  Homilies  on  Co- 
rinlliiaiis,  as  given  in  Lecture  VI,  p.  150. 


THE  INCARNATION  ANALOGY  LATER        205 

express  it  thus.  That  the  same  thing  twice  over  is  really 
one  thing  is  no  proof  whatever  that  two  different  things 
can  be  brought  under  a  glorious  unity.  That  the  eucha- 
ristic  body  of  our  Lord,  though  distinct  from  His  natural 
body,  is  yet  so  made  one  with  His  natural  body  in  the 
holding  of  His  one  Divine  Person,  that  we  speak  not  of 
two  bodies,  but  of  one  body,  is  precisely  what  leads  up 
to  the  thought  that  humanity  and  Divinity  may  be  held 
together  in  a  similar  fashion  in  the  holding  of  one  Divine 
Person,  one  single  Son  of  God. 

I  think  that  I  can  see  how  a  Nestorian  could  have  met 
that  particular  argument,  while  I  do  not  see  how  a  Euty- 
chian  could  have  evaded  the  argument  from  the  Eucharist 
brought  against  his  heresy  by  Theodoret.  With  no  more 
sympathy,  I  trust,  for  the  one  heresy  than  for  the  other 
in  my  own  mind,  I  find  Theodoret's  argument  from  the 
Eucharist  weighty,  as  against  Eutychian  error,  and  this 
argument  of  the  unknown  writer  weak,  as  against  Nes- 
torian error.  But  if  this  writer  had  held  that  the  eucha- 
ristic  body  of  our  Lord  and  His  natural  body  were  in  no 
wise  distinct  entities,  and  could  not  in  any  sense  be  spoken 
of  as  two,  then  (I  should  say)  he  could  not  even  have 
dreamed  of  finding  any  argument  here  at  aU.^ 


CONCLUSION 

I  should  have  been  glad  to  add  here  the  testimony  (a 
very  striking  and  important  testimony,  as  it  seems  to 
me)  of  S.  John  of  Damascus,  that  great  teacher  and 
guide  of  the  Holy  Orthodox  Eastern  Church,  but  space 

^  Completing  here  a  survey  of  the  patristic  teaching  of  five  cen- 
turies, I  invite  attention  to  the  view  of  the  same  writer  taken  by  an 
eminent  Roman  Catholic  scholar,  Mgr.  Batiffol.    See  Note  H,  p.  261. 


20G       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

fails  me,  and  I  must  print  what  I  have  to  offer  from  his 
writings  in  an  Appendix.  It  remains  to  spend  a  few 
minutes  in  friendly  talk  about  the  relation  of  this  ancient 
Christian  thought,  which  I  have  been  presenting,  to  the 
Christian  thought  of  to-day. 

And,  first,  I  know  that  the  enquiry  will  shape  itself 
in  the  minds  of  some  who  hear  me,  "How  can  this  doctrine, 
that  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  and  our  Lord's  body  in 
the  Eucharist  are  one  and  the  same  thing,  be  squared 
with  the  language  of  our  own  Anglican  formularies,  the 
language  which  speaks  of  the  Sacrament  as  having  two 
parts,  —  an  outward  and  visible  sign,  which  is  bread, 
and  an  inward  part,  or  thing  signified,  which  is  our 
Lord's  body?"  My  answer  is,  first,  that  our  Anglican 
Reformation  formularies  were  certainly  intended  by 
those  who  framed  them  to  be  very  generously  inclusive. 
I  sometimes  think  that  they  were  meant  to  comprehend 
everybody  who  could  at  all  be  comprehended  by  them,  — 
I  had  almost  said,  that  they  were  meant  to  take  in  every- 
body who  could  be  taken  in.  Certain  extremists,  whom 
there  was  no  hope  of  conciliating  anyway,  are  roundly 
denounced  in  our  famous  "Articles  of  Rehgion,"  to  catch 
the  favor  of  men  on  the  opposite  side  and  make  them  feel 
that  this  reformed  Church  of  England  was  really  mox-ing 
in  the  right  direction.  Nothing  was  said  to  make  it  im- 
possible to  keep  any  particular  fishes  in  the  net  that 
could  possibly  have  been  ex])ected  to  be  kept.  Where 
these  framers  came  near  treading  on  any  toes,  they 
meant  to  be  understood  as  treading  lightly. 

What,  then,  would  they  have  said  of  such  a  view  as  I 
have  been  endeavoring  to  present?  Why,  they  would 
have  observed,  of  course,  that  it  was  much  nearer  than 
the  view  of  some  of  my  critics  to  the  language  of  the 
Black  Rubric,  —  "The  natural  body  and  blood  of  our 


CONCLUSION  207 

Saviour  Christ  are  in  heaven,  and  not  here;  it  being 
against  the  truth  of  Christ's  natural  body  to  be  at  one 
time  in  more  places  than  one."  Then,  also,  these  Anglican 
Reformers  were  far  too  well-read  in  theology  and  philos- 
ophy to  have  had  any  notion  of  treating  "outward"  and 
"inward"  as  terms  of  locality.  They  did  not  think  of 
the  inward  power  as  being  contained  (in  any  local  sense) 
in  the  outward  sign.  Doubtless,  most  of  them  did,  in 
all  their  speculations,  think  of  the  bread  and  our  Lord's 
body  as  being  two  different  things,  but  they  never  said 
that  they  were  two  different  things.  They  only  said 
that  in  the  Sacrament  the  eye  of  faith  must  see  two 
facts,  —  a  spiritual  fact,  to  be  discerned  by  an  inner 
vision,  and  a  material  fact,  to  be  discerned  by  an  outward, 
natural  vision.  The  two  facts  might  concur  in  one 
substance,  for  anything  that  the  Catechism  says  to  the 
contrary.  I  allow  myself  to  add  a  criticism,  on  one  point, 
of  the  writer  of  the  section  on  the  sacraments  in  our 
Catechism.  I  admire  him  profoundly,  but  it  seems  to 
me  that  he  fell  into  a  manifest  confusion  in  his  use  of 
that  phrase,  "inward  part."  In  applying  his  definition 
of  a  sacrament  to  the  cases  of  Baptism  and  the  Eucharist, 
respectively,  he  falls  into  a  confusion  between  what 
theologians  have  called  the  Virtus  Sacramenti  and  what 
they  have  called  the  Res  Sacramenti.  For  Baptism  his 
"inward  part"  is  a  benefit  to  the  soul,  —  "a  death  unto 
sin,  and  a  new  birth  unto  righteousness."  Then,  to 
make  his  corresponding  answer  for  the  Eucharist  truly 
to  correspond,  he  should  have  said  that  the  inward  and 
spiritual  grace  of  the  Eucharist  was  a  fresh  incorporation 
with  our  Lord,  a  renewal  of  our  hold  upon  His  blessed 
body.  But  he  was  thinking  deeply  of  the  fact  that  all 
early  Christian  teaching  told  men  that  they  did  receive 
in  bread  and  wine  our  Lord's  body  and  blood,  and  he 


208        THE  EUCHARISTIC   BODY  AND  BLOOD 

wanted  to  say  that  same  thing.  It  was  a  thing  well 
worth  saying,  and,  in  fact,  he  did  say  it.  I  repeat  my 
former  assertion,  that  he  docs  not  say,  and  does  not  in 
any  way  necessarily  imply,  that  the  hallowed  bread  is 
not  that  very  "body  of  our  Lord,  which  is  spiritually 
taken  and  received."  He  does  not  insist,  though  prob- 
ably enough  he  did  think,  that  the  bread  was  one  thing, 
and  our  Lord's  body  another.  All  that  he  meant  to 
bind  on  the  consciences  of  the  Church's  children,  was 
that  they  should  believe  that  in  receiving  the  Sacrament 
they  were  receiving  "verily  and  indeed"  the  body  and 
blood  of  our  Lord.  If  he  could  have  imagined  such  an 
interpretation  of  the  Fathers  as  I  have  been  presenting, 
he  might  not  have  agreed  with  it  in  the  least,  but  I  am 
sure  that  he  would  not  have  claimed  that  it  was  now 
impossible  for  a  loyal  Anglican  theologian  to  hold  it. 

Let  me  say  further  that  while  our  Reformation  formu- 
laries are  certainly  binding  upon  us,  so  far  as  that  we 
must,  as  honest  men,  hold  ourselves  within  their  very 
broad  limits,  or  give  up  ministering  in  the  name  of  the 
Church  which  still  imposes  them,  I  must  remind  you  of 
two  points  as  to  which  I  am  sure  that  you  will  all  agree 
with  me.  The  first  is  tliat  no  theologian  of  eminence 
now  maintains  that  the  Anglican  Reformation  formularies 
are  in  themselves  infallible  and  irreformable.  The 
second,  like  unto  it,  is  that  the  Reformation  formularies 
do  not  really  represent  in  all  points  the  mind  of  our  own 
Church  of  to-day.  A  large  part  of  the  thirly-nine 
Articles,  for  example,  is  occupied  with  subjects  that  even 
theologians  do  not  spend  much  time  in  thinking  about 
now.  I  do  not  care  profoundly  whether  the  thought  and 
language  of  the  Fathers  agrees  precisely  with  the  thought 
and  language  of  the  divines  who  supported  the  throne  of 


CONCLUSION  209 

Queen  Elizabeth.^  I  am  asking  myself  interestedly  what 
this  ancient  thought,  which  I  have  been  bringing  out 
from  the  Church's  early  days,  has  to  offer  to  modern 
men,  thinking  the  thoughts  that  I  meet  with  now,  as  I 
read  their  books  and  hear  their  talk. 

And  here  let  me  say  that  while  in  these  Lectures  I  have 
spent  much  time  in  criticizing  the  views  of  other  men, 
and  while  I  have  taken  up  the  attitude  of  impartially 
faulting  all  modern  theories  and  their  upholders,  my 
purpose  all  through  has  been  distinctly  eirenical.  I  hold 
that  because  all  modern  theories  of  the  eucharistic  pres- 
ence begin  with  a  mistaken  pre-supposition,  therefore 
their  followers  have  thrown  away  the  key  of  truth,  and 
the  chaotic  confusion  which  does  actually  exist  in  the 
modern  world  is  the  necessary  result.  But  I  find  some 
hopeful  indications  of  drawing  nearer  together  among 
modern  theologians,  and  I  feel  that  the  ancient  theology 
has  a  ground  to  offer,  on  which  they  might  come  together 
more  readily  than  on  the  lines  which  have  been  the 
fashion  of  the  last  thousand  years. 

Let  me  speak  of  approximations  which  modern  thinkers 
have  already  been  making,  even  along  the  lines  of  their 
modern  pre-suppositions.  Roman  theologians  and  Angli- 
can theologians  of  the  Oxford  School  have,  as  it  appears 
to  me,  been  engaged,  of  late  years,  in  minimizing  that 
which  was  most  offensive  in  their  eucharistic  doctrine  to 
men  who  approached  the  subject  with  the  same  modern 
pre-suppositions,  but  with  an  opposite  mental  habit. 
They  have  dwelt  upon  the  presence  of  our  Lord's  body 
in  the  Eucharist  as  "a  spiritual  presence,"  as  "a  presence 
after  a  spiritual  manner,"  as  the  presence  of  "a  body 

^  I  am  aware  that  the  addition  to  the  Catechism  was  made  after  the 
accession  of  King  James.  It  remains  that  the  theology  involved  was  that 
of  the  preceding  half  century. 


210       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

which  is  wholly  a  spiritual  body,"  until  there  is  left  no 
presence,  so  far  as  I  can  discern,  of  any  material  thing  at 
all.  I  think,  myself,  that  they  are  on  dangerous  ground. 
I  hold  that  they  are  coming  perilously  near  to  a  doctrine 
that  destroys  our  Lord's  full  and  complete  humanity. 
Certainly  it  was  not  a  High  Churchman  who  was  reported, 
some  years  ago,  as  having  preached  a  sermon  in  which 
he  spoke  of  our  Lord's  Ascension  as  "a  kind  of  ex-carnation 
of  the  Incarnation,"  but  I  fear  that  some  modern  teaching 
of  Catholic  theologians  leans  quite  too  far  that  way. 
Yet  one  thing  is  clear,  and  has  promise  in  it.  If  such 
theologians  can  show  the  theologians  of  the  Virtualist 
type  that  their  doctrine  includes  no  bringing  down  from 
heaven  to  the  altar  of  any  material  thing  at  all,  they  will 
have  gone  a  long  way  in  the  direction  of  healing  the 
breaches  of  our  modern  religious  thought. 

Then  there  are  what  I  may  call  "eirenic  symptoms" 
on  the  other  side.  To  be  sure,  the  Protestant  Churches 
pretty  generally  seem  to  me  to  be  afflicted  with  a  sore 
disease,  which  must  run  its  course  before  there  can  be 
any  eirenic  discussions  of  value  between  us  and  them. 
They  have  suffered  a  fever  of  rationalism,  and  it  will 
have  to  be  followed,  nay,  is  followed  already,  by  the 
chill  of  a  mere  humanitarianism,  without  any  revelation 
of  truth,  without  any  sacraments  of  grace,  without  any 
supernatural  government  of  the  world,  to  rest  a  sad  or 
weary  heart  upon.  Between  those  who  hold  to  a  super- 
natural religion  and  those  who  acknowledge  nothing 
supernatural  in  human  life  except  their  own  enlightened 
wills  I  cannot  see  that  there  can  be  any  eirenic  con- 
ference as  yet,  except  as  to  that  one  point  of  difference, 
—  "Have  we  a  supernatural  religion?  or  have  we  not?" 
But  within  our  own  Anglican  Communion,  and  with  such 
staunch  believers  in  the  things  of  God  as  Scottish  Presby- 


CONCLUSION  211 

Cl, 

terians,  for  example,  there  has  been  a  movement  upwards 
from  low  views  of  the  sacrament  that  may  fairly  be 
described  as  eirenic,  too.  There  has  been  a  rising  tide  of 
devotion  to  our  Lord  in  connection  with  the  sacrament 
of  the  altar,  an  enlarging  use  of  the  sacrament,  a  deepening 
sense  of  the  value  of  the  sacrament,  a  growing  readiness 
to  give  expression  to  noble  interior  thoughts  in  noble 
outward  forms.  I  venture  to  call  this  returning  instinct 
for  "forms"  a  return  to  the  divine  method.  For  surely 
the  method  of  God  Himself  has  always  been  a  sacramental 
method,  seeking  to  enshrine  life  in  some  fitting  embodi- 
ment. As  I  look  back  to  my  own  boyhood,  and  think  of 
the  bareness  and  chilliness  of  the  sacramental  teaching, 
and  of  the  sacramental  manifestation,  the  outward  and 
visible  vesture  of  sacramental  observance,  as  they  were 
sixty  years  ago,  I  feel  that  the  Virtualist  type  has  known 
great  changes.  It,  too,  has  made  large  advances  toward 
a  common  ground  in  its  fuller  appreciation  of  the  sacra- 
mental idea. 

But  beyond  these  approximations  of  students  whose 
diverse  views  are  on  both  sides  essentially  modern  views, 
I  claim  that  the  ancient  theology  offers  a  new  and  larger 
"eirenicon."  If  the  follower  of  the  Oxford  School  can 
receive  my  suggestion  that  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist 
was  called  our  Lord's  body  in  ancient  times,  with  the 
understanding  that  that  phrase  meant  that  the  bread 
was  an  embodiment  of  our  Lord's  life,  it  still  remains 
open  to  this  Anglican  scholar  to  hold,  exactly  as  he  does 
now,  that  the  Presence  thus  embodied  is  actually  a 
Presence  of  our  Lord  in  His  natural  body.  The  early 
Fathers  do  not  seem  to  me  to  have  had  any  such  thought, 
but  I  grant  that  the  thought  might,  nevertheless,  be  a 
perfectly  true  thought.  So  far  as  I  can  see,  the  two 
thoughts  might  perfectly  well  be  held  together. 


212       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

I  have  been  asked  what  bearing  the  thought  which  I 
have  been  presenting  as  that  of  the  Fathers  would  have 
on  such  practical  questions  of  to-day  as  those  which 
gather  around  the  words  "Reservation"  and  "Benedic- 
tion." I  will  be  entirely  frank,  and  say  (at  the  risk  of 
alienating  sympathy  that  might  be  beginning  to  turn 
toward  me  from  another  direction)  that  so  far  as  I  can 
see,  no  Anglican  theologian  has  anything  to  lose  by 
accepting  this  view  of  the  eucharistic  Presence,  which  I 
seem  to  find  in  the  ancient  writers.  Here  is  our  Lord 
vouchsafing  a  most  special  Presence  of  Himself  among 
us,  giving  Himself  to  be  our  food  and  sustenance  in  the 
power  of  His  life,  giving  Himself  to  receive  our  adoration 
in  a  visible  embodiment,  waiting,  it  may  be,  to  receive 
our  visits  to  His  Tabernacle,  or  to  give  us  His  blessing 
from  the  Monstrance.  So  far  as  I  can  see,  the  whole 
treasure  of  such  pious  hearts  would  remain  to  them 
unimpaired.  For  myself,  I  lean  to  the  idea  of  the  Bishop 
of  Oxford  that  it  would  do  the  Church  more  good  to  learn 
to  ascend  to  our  Lord  in  heaven,  than  to  make  a  Tabernacle 
for  Him  in  which  He  may  be  visited  on  earth,  and  that 
we  should  gain  by  dwelling  more  on  His  presence  in 
ourselves,  in  proportion  to  His  presence  in  our  sacra- 
mental elements.  But  what  I  have  called  the  old  theology 
finds  our  Lord  in  the  sacrament  as  much  as  any  modern 
theology.  Nay,  more,  I  think,  for  I  myself  can  say, 
with  S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  that,  according  to  this  belief, 
which  I  have  learned  from  the  Fathers,  "Christ  appears 
visibly  in  His  body,  and  He  permits  and  grants  us  to 
touch  His  holy  flesh."  I  have  learned  to  say  that  I  can 
see  and  touch  the  very  body  of  the  Lord.  What  w^e  ought 
to  do  with  that  wonderful  gift  is  another  matter.  I  will 
only  say  that  I  am  convinced  that  devout  men  should 
have  freedom  to  decide  the  question,  each  in  his  own 


CONCLUSION  213 

way.  If  one  man  holds  that  visits  to  the  Tabernacle, 
and  Benediction  with  the  Blessed  Sacrament  are  unde- 
sirable, let  him  not  practice  them.  If  another  man  craves 
with  his  whole  soul  such  approaches  to  our  Lord,  let  no 
Bishop,  no  General  Convention,  no  force  of  unreasoning 
prejudice,  no!  no  wise  and  careful  theologian  even,  take 
the  responsibility  of  hindering  that  soul  from  coming  to 
God  in  its  own  natural  way,  even  as  the  flower  turns 
toward  the  light.  Our  Lord  is  there.  He  is  drawing 
men.  Let  them  come  to  Him,  as  each  one  sees  the  way. 
Such  language  as  this  will  grieve  and  repel  my  friends 
of  the  Virtualist  type  of  mind,  to  whom  the  phrase, 
"The  natural  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ  are 
in  heaven  and  not  here,"  has  always  seemed  the  cardinal 
point  of  eucharistic  theory,  and  to  whom,  therefore,  the 
idea  of  our  Lord's  body  appearing  visibly  on  the  altar 
seems  at  first  view  utterly  repellent.  But  this  view 
reiterates  for  them  that  formula,  "The  natural  body  and 
blood  are  not  here."  It  provides  abundantly  for  the 
satisfaction  of  that  requirement  of  their  minds.  It 
presents  our  Lord's  Person  and  our  Lord's  Life  as  the 
heavenly  part  of  the  sacrament,  and  says  simply  that 
the  bread  which  receives  these  as  a  shrine  is  thereby 
made  to  be  the  body  of  our  Lord,  and  the  wine  which 
receives  these  is  made  to  be  something  which  our  Lord 
can  rightly  call  His  blood.  This  view  does  ask  the 
Virtualist  to  go  a  step  farther  than  he  has  ever  gone 
before,  and  to  acknowledge  that  our  Lord  really  taber- 
nacles in  a  special  way  in  the  material  elements  of  the 
sacrament,  even  as  He  condescended,  nineteen  centuries 
ago,  to  dwell,  all  unrecognized  as  to  his  Deity,  in  the 
body  of  His  flesh.  But  the  theory  here  presented  offers 
the  Virtualist  theologian  an  opportunity  to  take  this 
forward  step  without  contradicting  his  own  reason,  as 


«14       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

he  has  felt  in  time  past  that  he  would  have  to  contradict 
his  own  reason,  to  accept  the  idea  of  "body  present  as 
spirit,"  and  the  other  phrases  which  have  troubled  him 
in  the  older  Tractarian  teaching. 

But  then  there  are,  I  believe,  a  multitude  of  devout 
men  among  us,  of  the  clergy  as  well  as  of  the  laity,  who, 
though  they  are  clear  reasoners  and  devout  students  and 
faithful  waiters  upon  God  in  His  sacramental  gifts,  have 
never  found  any  theory  of  the  mystery  of  our  Lord's 
eucharistic  Presence,  to  which  they  could  give  their 
adhesion.  I  wonder  yearningly  if  what  I  think  that  I 
have  found  to  be  the  primitive  Christian  belief  and  teach- 
ing may  not  prove  to  be  a  perfectly  possible  beUef  and 
teaching  for  them,  giving  them  the  satisfaction  of  feeling 
that  they  can  share  the  thoughts  of  generations  of  saints. 

K  I  asked  a  group  of  Anglican  theologians  to  name 
the  greatest  master  of  theology  that  the  Anghcan  Com- 
munion has  had  in  four  hundred  years  before  our  time, 
I  think  that  most  of  them  would  say,  "Richard  Hooker." 
Well,  that  good  man  seems  to  me  to  have  been  just  one 
of  those  unsettled  souls  who  have  not  been  able  to  satisfy 
themselves  with  any  modern  theory  of  the  eucharistic 
Presence.  In  his  despair  of  such  an  intellectual  satis- 
faction he  fell  back  upon  that  famous  phrase  of  his,  — 
"Why  should  any  cogitation  possess  the  mind  of  a  faithful 
communicant  but  this:  *0h!  My  God,  thou  art  true. 
Oh!  My  soul,  thou  art  happy.'"  There  are  many,  many 
minds  that  need  no  philosophy  of  any  matter:  Hooker's 
phrase  is  quite  enough  for  them.  There  are  other  minds 
that  must  think  things  out.  I  think,  and  hope,  that 
there  may  be  some  who,  if  they  could  once  be  brought  to 
taste  the  wine  of  Christian  doctrine  pressed  out  from  the 
devout  meditations  of  the  early  Fathers,  would  cry  out 
with  joy,  "The  old  is  better!" 


APPENDIX  I 

WRITERS  WHO  PRESS  THE  PARALLEL  OF  THE 
INCARNATION  AND  THE  EUCHARIST 

(continued) 

IV 

S.  John  of  Damascus,  Monk,  and  Teacher  of  all 
THE  Orthodox  East 

It  lies  outside  the  lines  of  consecutive  study  of  the 
Church's  eucharistic  teaching  to  present  here  a  writer  of 
the  eighth  century,  but  I  need  make  no  apology  for 
abandoning  those  lines  to  introduce  here  that  great 
teacher,  S.  John  of  Damascus.  He  is  often  spoken  of  as 
having  lent  powerful  help  to  the  movement  of  the  Church's 
thought  in  the  direction  of  the  modern  theory  of  Tran- 
substantiation.  For  my  part,  I  seem  to  find  in  him  most 
remarkable  testimonies  in  favor  of  what  I  have  been 
describing  as  the  ancient  belief  of  the  Church.  But  my 
chief  reason  for  going  far  outside  my  appointed  limits  to 
include  him  in  my  study  of  the  Fathers  is  that  he  seems 
to  be  to  all  the  Orthodox  East  what  S.  Augustine  of 
Hippo  was  for  centuries  in  the  West,  the  supreme  repre- 
sentative of  the  Church's  theology  and  philosophy,  the 
teacher  of  teachers,  and  the  interpreter  by  whose  help 
all  other  Fathers  were  to  be  understood  and  measured. 

Born  in  Damascus,  of  Christian  parents,  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  seventh  century,  John  Mansour  had  large 
advantages  of  education  and  culture,  and  came  to  be  a 

215 


216       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

.1 
trusted  officer  in  the  great  Mahometan  court  of  the 
Cahphs  of  his  day.  After  he  had  reached  middle  life, 
and  had  known  the  fascinations  of  luxury  and  power,  he 
felt  the  call  of  a  great  renunciation,  and  gave  himself  to 
the  more  exclusive  service  of  God  as  a  monk  in  the  mon- 
astery of  Saint  Sabas,  a  little  out  of  Jerusalem.  His 
death  may  be  placed  about  a.d.  760. 

My  quotations  from  S.  John  of  Damascus  may  well 
begin  with  his  comments  on  1  Cor.  x.  16,  17.  They  press 
very  strongly  the  identification  of  the  eucharistic  body 
of  our  Lord  with  His  natural  body,  but  they  press  just  as 
strongly  the  thought  that  the  eucharistic  bread  is  itself 
made  to  be  a  body  of  our  Lord.  Further,  we  shall  find 
S.  John  insisting  that  we  ourselves,  as  the  result  of  our 
communions,  are  not  many  bodies,  but  one.  This  last 
statement  is  to  me  extraordinarily  interesting,  because  I 
find  in  it  a  confirmation  by  S.  John  of  Damascus  of  my 
interpretation  of  that  phrase  of  our  anonymous  author, 
"We  speak  not  of  two  bodies,  but  of  one  body  of  the 
Lord."  S.  John  of  Damascus  had  read  that  treatise  in 
which  the  phrase  I  have  just  quoted  stands  out  so  uniquely. 
He  had  read  the  treatise,  and  he  quoted  from  it  as  a  writing 
of  S.  John  Chrysostom.  It  would  seem  as  if  that  very 
passage  was  in  his  mind,  when  he  wrote  that  tve  "are 
made  not  many  bodies,  but  one."  We  are  many  bodies. 
Nothing  can  change  that  fact.  But  according  to  S. 
John,  we  become  so  identified  with  our  Lord's  body  in 
heaven,  that  our  existence  as  in  so  many  separate  bodies 
may  be  set  aside,  and  dropped  out  of  view.  So,  it  would 
seem,  he  would  understand  the  writer  whom  he  mis- 
takenly supposed  to  be  Chrysostom,  saying  "we  speak 
not  of  two  bodies,  but  of  one  body."  Two  bodies  there 
arc  in  literal  fact,  but  their  unification  makes  it  right  to 
speak  as  if  they  made  but  one.     In  this  case  I  have 


APPENDIX  I  217 

preferred  to  present  my  comments  on  the  author,  before 
presenting  his  own  words.  I  will  now  read  the  extracts 
from  the  Commentary  without  interruption  or  further 
explanation. 

"The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless. 

When  he  says  'blessing,'  he  speaks  of  the  Thanksgiving 
(evxapiariav) ,  and  speaking  of  the  Thanksgiving  he  unfolds  in 
its  entirety  the  treasury  of  the  beneficence  of  God,  and  calls 
to  mind  His  great  bounties,  in  that  when  we  had  no  hope,  and 
were  without  God  in  the  world.  He  made  us  His  brethren  and 
joint-heirs  with  Him. 

Is  it  not  a  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ? 

That  same  blood  which  is  in  the  cup.  He  says,  is  that  which 
flowed  from  the  side,^  and  of  that  we  partake. 

The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  communion 
of  the  body  of  the  Christ? 

And  why  did  he  not  say  a  participation  {neToxiiv)  ?  Because 
he  wanted  to  make  it  clear  that  there  was  something  more, 
and  to  show  the  greatness  of  the  union  {<Twa(l>tiav) .  For  not  by 
participation  and  reception  only,  but  also  by  being  made  one 
with  Him  do  we  communicate  with  Him.  Even  as  the  body  has 
been  made  one  with  the  Word,  so  are  we  being  united  with  Him 
by  means  of  this  bread. 

^  The  Greek  is  t6  iv  tw  ■Kor-qpic^  iKtlvb  kariv  t6  iwd  rijs  irXeupas  pevaav. 
I  think  that  eKdvo  must  qualify  t6  kv  tw  iroTr]plw.  If  it  belongs  to  t6 
i,Trd  TTJs  irXeupSs  pedcrav,  the  translation  is,  "That  which  is  in  the  cup  is 
that  same  which  flowed  from  the  side."  To  one  clause  or  the  other 
eKelvo  lends  a  strong  demonstrative  force.  The  Greek  cannot  mean 
simply,  "That  which  is  in  the  cup  is  that  which  flowed  from  the 
side,"  as  in  the  translation  in  the  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers, 
as  if  e/celw  was  not  there  at  all.  The  saying  is  very  emphatic,  as  one 
writes  a  phr^we  in  italics  in  a  modern  style. 


218       THE  EUCIIARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Because  tee,  the  many,  are  one  bread,  one  body, 
Jof  we  all  of  us  parta/ce  of  the  one  bread. 

'Why  do  I  speak  of  a  communion?'  he  says.  'We  are  that 
body  itself  (avro  katiev  'tKtlvo  t6  aufia).  For  the  bread  is 
a  body  of  Christ,  and  the  receivers  are  made  (yiyvovrai)  not 
many  bodies,  but  one.  Even  as  the  bread,  while  composed  of 
many  grains,  has  been  made  one,  so  that  the  grains  are  no  more 
seen,  but  yet  they  exist  in  themselves,  with  their  distinction 
lost  to  view  in  their  union,  so  also  are  we  united  with  one  another, 
and  with  the  Christ.  For  we  are  not  nourished,  one  of  one  body, 
and  another  of  another  body,  but  all  of  the  same  [Greek,  airrov 
'of  itself,'  but  English  idiom  requires  us  to  say,  'the  same']. 
Wherefore  he  says,  '  For  we  all  of  us  partake  of  the  one  bread.* 
But  if  of  the  same  [here  we  have  really  tov  avTovl,  and  we  are 
all  made  to  be  the  same  thing  Lei  t6  abrh  yiyvofjoda  iravres^,   why 

do  we  not  also  show  the  same  love,  and  thus  become  one?  "  ^ 

It  may  be  noted  in  passing,  that  in  his  first  and  second 
Discourses  on  the  Holy  Images  John  of  Damascus  uses 
such  an  argument  as  this  against  the  opponents  of  the 
veneration  of  images: 

"Is  not  the  life-giving  table,  which  ministers  to  us  the  bread 
of  life,  material?  Are  not  the  gold  and  silver,  from  which  crosses 
and  patens  and  chalices  are  made,  material?  Above  all  these, 
are  not  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  material?"  * 

Of  course,  his  point  is,  first,  that  material  things  are 
not  to  be  despised  with  a  Manichean  feeling  that  what  is 
material  is  evil,  and,  second,  that  God  does  plainly  use 
material  means  for  spiritual  ends  and  as  vehicles  of 
spiritual  power.  But  could  he  fairly  have  appealed  to 
our  Lord's  body  and  blood  as  material,  if  he  had  regarded 
them  as  raised  from  the  material  to  the  spiritual  order? 
or  even  as  present  on  the  altar  "only  after  the  manner  of 

1  P.  G.  94,  648.  *  On  the  Images,  I.  16;    P.  G.  94,  1245. 


APPENDIX  I  219 

spirit"?  It  seems  to  me  that  he  could  not.  But  I  do 
not  mean  to  make  much  of  this  point.  Certainly,  some 
of  the  Fathers  did  sometimes  use  arguments  that  were 
not  fair.  I  will  only  say  that  it  seems  to  me  simpler  to 
understand  the  arguments  as  referring  to  the  consecrated 
bread  and  wine,  named,  as  the  Fathers  did  so  constantly 
name  them,  "the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,"  and 
regarded  as  unchanged  in  their  material  substance. 

S.  John  of  Damascus  wrote  an  elaborate  treatise  on 
The  Orthodox  Faith.  It  may  be  found  in  the  Patrologia 
Graeca,  94,  and  if  the  student  will  turn  to  Chapter  10  of 
Book  IV,  filling  columns  1148  to  1153,  he  will  find  that  it 
deals  with  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist.  Some  extracts 
follow: 

"If  then  the  word  of  God  is  living  and  powerful,  and  the  Lord 
did  all  that  He  willed ;  ...  if  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  water 
and  fire  and  air,  and  all  their  ordered  belonging,  and  in  sooth  this 
much  vaunted  creature,  man,  were  brought  to  full  accomplish- 
ment by  the  word  of  the  Lord ;  if  the  Divine  Word  by  an  act  of 
His  own  will  became  man,  and  without  seed  of  man  made  the 
blood  of  the  holy  and  ever  Virgin  Mother  to  supply  flesh  for 
Him,  can  He  not  then  make  the  bread  a  body  of  His  own,^  and 
the  wine  and  water  blood?  He  said  in  the  beginning,  'Let  the 
earth  bring  forth  grass,'  and  even  to  this  day,  when  the  rain 
comes,  it  does  bring  forth  its  proper  fruits,  urged  on  and  em- 
powered by  the  divine  command.  God  said, 'This  is  My  body,' 
and  'This  is  My  blood,'  and  'This  do  in  remembrance  of  Me,* 
and  it  is  done,  at  His  omnipotent  command,  until  He  come. 
For  such  was  the  saying,  'Until  He  come,' ^  and  to  this  new 
husbandry  there  comes,  through  the  Invocation,  a  rain,  even 
the  shadowing  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  just  as  God  made 
all  things  which  He  made  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

*  The  Greek  is,  oi  Sdvarai  t6p  &.pTov  eauroD  au/jia  Troirjaai. 
^  Of  course,  the  reference  is  to  1  Cor.  xi.  2G,  but  the  quotation  is  not 
accurate,  «w$  dv  eXOn,  probably  by  a  slip  of  memory,  for  tixpts  ov  eX^p. 


no       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

so  also  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  performs  those  things 
which  are  beyond  nature,  wliich  faith  alone  can  receive.  'How 
shall  this  be  to  me?'  said  the  Holy  Virgin,  'seeing  I  know  not 
a  man?'  And  Gabriel  the  archangel  answers,  'The  Holy  Spirit 
shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  over- 
shadow thee.'  And  do  you  now  ask  how  the  bread  becomes  a 
body  of  Christ,  and  the  wine  and  water  blood  of  Christ?  I  also 
say  to  you:  'The  Holy  Spirit  comes  on  them,  and  makes  them 
to  be  those  things  which  are  beyond  reason  and  thought.' 

"  Further,  bread  and  wine  are  employed,  for  God  knows  the  in- 
firmity of  man,  for  in  general  man  turns  discontentedly  away  from 
everything  that  does  not  run  in  the  well-worn  ways  of  custom; 
and  so,  with  His  usual  indulgence.  He  makes  His  supernatural 
creations  by  means  of  the  things  which  men  are  accustomed  to 
in  nature;  and  just  as  in  Baptism,  seeing  it  is  man's  custom  to 
wash  himself  with  water  and  anoint  liimself  with  oil,  God  linked 
the  grace  of  the  Spirit  with  the  oil  and  the  water,  and  made  it 
to  be  the  water  of  regeneration,  in  like  manner,  seeing  it  is  man's 
custom  to  eat  bread  and  to  drink  water  and  wine,  with  them 
God  linked  His  Deity  and  made  them  His  body  and  blood,  that 
through  those  things  which  are  ordinary  and  natural  we  may 
come  to  have  part  in  those  things  which  are  supernatural.' 

Body  is  truly  united  with  Deity,  even  the  body  which  was 
born  of  the  Virgin,  not  that  the  body  which  ascended  comes  down 
from  heaven,  but  that  the  bread  itself  and  the  wine  are  transmade 
[/itraTTotflTot]  into  a  body  and  blood  of  God." 

I  interrupt  my  quotation  here  to  remark  on  questions 
of  translation  that  come  up  in  the  last  two  sentences. 
It  is  the  custom  of  the  Greek  Fathers  in  speaking  of  the 
natural  body  of  our  Lord  to  use  the  article.  It  is  a  very 
common  thing  with  them  in  speaking  of  the  eucharistic 
body  to  omit  the  article.  I  should  not  dream  of  insisting 
that  a  noun  without  the  article  in  Greek  must  always  be 

*  The  Greek  is,  iv  roh  virkp  <f>l>(yiv  ytvufieda,  literally,  "may  become 
in  those  things  which  are  supernalural." 


APPENDIX  I  221 

translated  by  a  noun  without  the  article  in  English.  I 
know  better.  The  idioms  of  the  two  languages  do  not 
exactly  correspond.  But  this  I  say  confidently:  When 
a  Greek  writer  uses  awp-a  (anarthrous)/  he  never  means  the 
same  thing  that  he  would  mean  if  in  the  same  phrase  he 
wrote  TO  aCiixa.  In  the  last  sentence  but  one,  I  have 
written  these  words,  —  "with  them  God  linked  His 
Deity,  and  made  them  His  body  and  blood,"  just  as  I 
should  if  the  Greek  had  been  to  ccofxa  Kal  to  alfxa  avTov. 
But  the  words  auixa  and  al/xa  had,  in  fact,  no  article,  and 
the  meaning  was  strictly,  "made  them  to  be  a  body  and 
blood  of  Him,"  that  is  to  say,  "made  them  to  be  a  body 
and  blood  for  His  use." 

In  like  manner  in  the  very  last  words  quoted  above, 
"transmade  into  a  body  and  blood  of  God,"  it  would 

^  For  the  help  of  students  who  do  not  read  Greek,  it  may  be  well  to 
oflFer  an  explanation  of  what  is  meant  by  "anarthrous."  It  refers  to 
the  use  of  a  noun  without  the  definite  article  in  Greek.  The  Greek 
language  has  not  an  indefinite  article,  such  as  our  "a"  or  "an."  Greek 
cannot  distinguish  between  "having  fish  for  dinner"  and  "having  a 
fish  for  dinner."  It  can  distinguish  "the  fish"  from  "fish"  or  "a  fish," 
but  not  these  last  from  one  another.  It  is  true  also  that  in  Greek  some 
great  titles  like  "Lord"  come  to  be  used  without  the  article  (anarth- 
rously  in  fact),  when  the  phrase  is  used  definitely,  and  means  "the 
Lord."  I  have  not  discovered  any  indication  that  the  words  "body" 
and  "blood"  are  thus  used  anarthrously  when  their  meaning  is  a  definite 
meaning.  It  is  quite  possible  that  when  a  Greek  writer  speaks  of  bread 
as  being  "made  body  of  our  Lord,"  to  translate  by  "a  body"  might 
in  a  measure  misrepresent  the  course  of  his  thought.  I  hold  it  to  be 
certain  that  to  translate  such  a  phrase  by  "the  body"  would  be  a  clear 
misrepresentation  of  his  thought.  When  the  Greek  writers  say  that 
bread  and  wine  are  made  "body"  and  "blood,"  omitting  the  article, 
they  mean  that  these  elements  are  made  to  take  on  the  quality  of  "body" 
or  "blood,"  as  the  case  may  be.  That  is  different  from  saying  that 
these  elements  are  made  to  be  "  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,"  though, 
as  I  have  constantly  affirmed,  that  also  might  be  said,  and  is  often  said,  in 
a  sense. 


222       TIIE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

misrepresent  S.  John  Damascene,  and  mistranslate  Greek 
words,  to  put  it  "transmade  into  the  body  and  blood  of 
God."  What  is  meant  is  that  bread  and  wine  are  made 
over  into  things  having  the  character  of  body  and  the 
character  of  blood  respectively,  and  belonging  to  One 
who  is  God.  I  must  call  attention  also  to  the  phrase, 
"not  that  the  body  which  ascended  comes  down  from 
heaven."  Of  course,  both  Roman  theologians  and  those 
of  our  own  Oxford  School  would  earnestly  disown  the  idea 
that  our  Lord's  glorified  body  "comes  down  from  heaven" 
to  be  present  in  the  Eucharist.  Its  presence  is  not  local, 
they  say.  It  does  not  move  from  place  to  place.  I  have 
before  quoted  Cardinal  Newman  as  saying  that  "the 
body  of  our  Lord  does  not  move  from  place  to  place, 
when  the  Host  is  carried  in  procession."  But  look  at 
the  way  in  which  the  Damascene  introduces  his  phrase. 
He  does  not  say  that  our  Lord's  heavenly  body  is  on  the 
altar,  "only  you  must  understand  that  it  does  not  leave 
heaven  in  order  to  be  there."  No!  He  says  that  the  bread 
and  wine  become  a  body  and  blood  of  God,  are  joined  to 
the  glorified  body  and  become  one  with  it,  but  that  that 
heavenly  body  is  not  there  on  the  altar,  though  the  body 
that  is  there  is  so  joined  with  the  body  which  is  above  as 
to  be  identified  with  it.  That  seems  to  me  to  be  the  only 
natural  and  unforced  reading  of  this  "not  that  the  body 
which  ascended  comes  down  from  heaven,"  introduced 
as  the  phrase  is  here. 

I  resume  my  quotation  from  the  spot  where  I  broke 
off.  The  Damascene  is  going  to  give  us  a  little  more  in 
the  way  of  interpretation  of  the  mystery,  even  in  the 
act  of  saying  that  he  can  say  nothing  more. 

"But  if  you  enquire  how  this  happens,  it  is  enough  for  you 
to  learn  that  it  is  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  just  as  through  the 
Spirit  our  Lord  made  flesh  to  be  for  Himself,  subsisting  in  Him- 


APPENDIX  I  223 

self,  from  the  holy  Theotokos.  And  we  know  nothing  more, 
save  that  the  Word  of  God  is  true  and  active  and  Almighty, 
while  the  method  is  misearchable.  But  it  is  not  a  very  bad 
way  to  put  it,  that  as  in  nature  the  bread  tlirough  being  eaten 
and  the  wine  and  water  through  being  drunk  are  changed  into 
body  and  blood  of  him  who  eats  and  drinks,  and  do  not  become 
another  body,  difiFerent  from  the  former  one,  so  the  bread  of  the 
preparation  ^  and  the  wine  and  water  are  supernaturally  changed 
by  the  invocation  and  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  into  the  body 
of  the  Christ  and  into  His  blood,  and  are  not  two  things,  but 
one  and  the  same." 

The  bread  and  wine  which  a  man  takes  to  himself  for 
nourishment  are  changed  into  body,  and  do  not  become 
another  body,  different  from  the  former  one.  So  in  the 
Eucharist,  says  our  S.  John,  our  Lord  takes  to  Himself 
bread  and  wine  to  extend  His  power,  and  these  elements 
are  made  to  be  body  and  blood  for  His  use,  but  as  an 
enlargement  of  His  body  which  He  had  before,  not  as  a 
separate  and  (so  to  speak)  rival  body.  "But,"  it  will  be 
said  to  me,  of  course,  "can  you  not  see  that  S.  John  of 
Damascus  flatly  contradicts  your  own  teaching.?  You 
tell  us  that  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucharist  are 
made  to  be  'another  body'  and  'another  blood'  of  our 
Lord."  My  answer  is,  as  in  the  case  of  that  nameless 
writer  whose  work  S.  John  of  Damascus  admired  and 
quoted,  and  who  said  that  "we  speak  not  of  two  bodies," 
that  here  are  two  forms  of  speech  which  may  be  used 
with  equal  truth  and  propriety.  We  may  call  the  eucha- 
ristic  body  of  our  Lord  and  His  natural  body  two  distinct 
bodies,  or  one  and  the  same  body.    We  may  say  of  the 

*  Greek,  TpoOeaeus,  referring,  apparently,  to  the  "table  of  pro- 
thesis"  in  the  sacristy,  or  side-chapel,  in  an  oriental  church,  and  to  the 
elaborate  preparation  of  the  elements  before  the  "Little  Entrance"  in 
the  Greek  rites. 


224       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Church  that  it  consists  of  many  persons,  or  that  it  is  one 
Person.  S.  Paul  is  our  authority  for  that:  "Ye  are  all  one 
man  in  Christ  Jesus."  ^  Which  of  two  things  does  John 
of  Damascus  mean  to  say,  —  that  the  elements  become 
our  Lord's  glorified  body  and  no  other.?  Or  that  the 
elements  become  a  distinct  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord, 
which  yet  are  an  extension  of,  and  so  are  to  be  identified 
with.  His  natural  body?  I  claim  that  it  is  only  the  latter 
interpretation  of  our  saint,  with  which  his  illustration  of 
the  natural  growth  of  human  bodies  by  sustenance  can 
be  made  to  fit.  Our  food  is  added  to  the  body  we  had 
before  and  becomes  part  of  it,  and  loses  its  distinct  value 
in  becoming  identified  with  our  former  body.  But  it  is 
not  changed  into  the  identical  body  which  we  had  before 
we  ate  this  food.  It  becomes  that  body  which  we  had 
before  this  eating,  in  a  sense.  It  becomes  identified 
with  that  body,  and  is  a  part  of  that  body,  and  takes  on 
the  character  of  that  body.  But  hold  these  two  con- 
ceptions distinctly  before  your  mind,  —  the  body  of  a 
man  about  to  take  food  and  the  food  which  he  is  about 
to  take,  and  certainly  the  latter  is  not  transmade  into 
the  former.  Food  becomes  a  man's  body  by  being  added 
to  the  body  which  the  man  had  before.  That  is  the 
crucial  point.  The  eucharistic  elements  are  super- 
naturally  changed  into  our  Lord's  body  and  blood  by 
being  added  to  the  body  which  He  wears  in  heaven. 
That,  or  else  this  illustration  given  by  the  Damascene  is 
no  illustration,  but  only  an  example  of  utter  intellectual 
confusion. 

I  must  comment  briefly  on  one  more  phrase  of  the 
extract.  S.  John  says  of  the  bread  and  of  the  wine  and 
water  that  when  they  have  been  supernaturally  changed 

'  Gal.  iii.  28,  iravTes  y&p  u/ueli  «Is  kari.  That  does  not  mean,  "Ye 
are  all  one  Ihin^,"  but  "Ye  are  all  one  Person." 


APPENDIX  I  225 

they  " are  not  two  things,  but  one  and  the  same."  Plamly, 
he  means  that  this  is  true  of  each  element.  I  think  that 
there  will  be  no  difference  of  opinion  among  students  of 
the  passage  about  that  point.  The  bread,  for  example, 
is  not  two  things,  but  one.  With  such  a  statement  the 
Roman  theologian  has,  of  course,  no  difficulty.  The 
bread  and  our  Lord's  body  are  not  two  things!  No, 
indeed!  The  bread  has  been  transformed  into  our 
Lord's  glorified  body,  and  has  ceased  to  be.  It  may  be 
remarked  that  this  is  a  very  strange  use  of  the  word 
"transformed."  The  Roman  theology  talks  of  changing 
one  thing  into  another.  It  really  teaches  that  one  thing 
is  annihilated  to  make  a  place  for  another.  But  let  that 
pass.  This  particular  statement,  that  the  bread  is  not 
two  things  but  one,  will  give  a  Roman  theologian  no  diffi- 
culty. But  I  venture  to  suggest  that  to  the  students  of 
the  Oxford  School  it  presents  a  difficulty  to  which  I  see 
no  answer.  To  their  thought,  as  to  the  thought  of  the 
whole  primitive  Church,  the  bread  remains.  The  bread 
is  one  thing,  and  our  Lord's  glorified  body  is  another 
thing.  How  then  are  these  two  things  "not  two  things, 
but  one"?  My  own  thought  is  that  S.  John  means 
here  to  say  that  in  case  of  each  of  the  eucharistic  elements 
a  common  thing  has  a  marked  change  of  character,  and 
becomes  a  very  much  greater  thing,  and  so  is  called  by 
a  very  much  greater  name,  but  it  is  one  thing  which  is 
there  all  through,  bearing  both  names.  When  George  V 
was  made  king,  he  was  not  made  to  be  some  king  that  had 
formerly  existed.  He  was  made  to  have  the  character  of 
king.  But  in  being  thus  made  to  be  what  he  was  not 
before  he  was  not  two  things,  but  one.  Such,  as  I  read 
S.  John  of  Damascus,  is  his  account  of  the  supernatural 
change  that  makes  bread  and  wine  to  be  our  Lord's  body 
and  blood. 


226       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Interesting  parallels  with  earlier  writers  are  frequent 
in  our  Damascene.  As  Dr.  Stone  points  out  in  his 
History  (I.  147),  he  suggests  S.  Ambrose  in  his  use  of 
illustrations  from  God's  acts  in  the  creation  and  in  the 
Incarnation  to  throw  light  on  the  eucharistic  miracle, 
and  again  he  suggests  S.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  in  his  use  of 
the  word  "transmade,"  and  in  presenting  the  illustration 
from  the  turning  of  bread  and  wine  into  the  body  of  a 
man  who  eats  them.  So  now  we  shall  find  him  following 
the  example  of  Macarius  Magnes  in  disowning  the  name  of 
"type"  for  the  consecrated  elements.  Of  course,  in  this 
he  separates  himself  from  the  speech  of  the  Church 
generally  through  all  the  first  four  Christian  centuries. 
But  apparently  his  change  of  language  does  not  involve 
any  real  change  of  doctrinal  ojiinion.  Only  the  obvious 
fact  that  the  broken  bread  and  the  poured  wine  do  make 
natural  pictures,  "symbols,"  as  we  say,  or  "types,"  of 
our  Lord's  broken  body  and  shed  blood  seems  to  him 
utterly  unimportant,  as  compared  with  the  meaning  of 
the  consecrated  elements  as  spiritual  powers,  and  as  being 
really  a  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  and  he  has  learned 
to  fear  that  some  one  might  get  from  such  a  word  as 
"type"  an  impression  of  unreahty.     Here  are  his  words: 

"The  bread  and  wine  are  not  a  figure  [tuttoj]  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  but  tlie  Lord's  very  body,  deified  [auxA  t6  awfta 
Kvplov  TfOeuixipov^,  since  the  Lord  said,  'This  is  My  bo<ly,'  not 
'This  is  a  figure  of  My  body,'  and  not  'figure  of  the  blood,'  but 
'blood.'"  1 

In  his  next  paragraph,  it  will  be  found,  he  makes  an 
interesting  use  of  Isaiah's  vision  of  the  coal  brought  by  a 
seraph   from  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  to  touch  the 

'  The  reference  is  still  to  Chapter  13  of  Book  IV  of  the  Treatise 
On  the  Orthodox  Faith. 


APPENDIX  I  227 

prophet's  lips.  It  was  a  favorite  type  of  the  Eucharist 
in  the  patristic  teaching.  Interesting  examples  will  be 
found  in  Dr.  Pusey's  Catena,  pp.  119-131.  It  should  be 
observed,  however,  that  Dr.  Pusey  assumes  that  the 
"fire"  in  the  coal  is  our  Lord's  body,  or  perhaps  I  should 
rather  say,  "the  totus  Christus."  In  such  patristic 
passages  as  I  know,  where  it  is  made  clear  what  the 
writer's  thought  was,  it  is  our  Lord's  Deity.  Of  course, 
that  is  so  when  the  coal  is  taken  as  a  type  of  the  Incarna- 
tion. Then  the  humanity  of  our  Lord  is  the  "coal," 
and  His  Divinity  is  the  "fire."  It  will  be  seen  that  S. 
John  of  Damascus  keeps  close  to  the  customary  parallel 
of  the  Incarnation  and  the  Eucharist,  and  explains  the 
"fire"  as  being  our  Lord's  Deity,  while  the  "coal"  is  the 
material  element  in  which  He  embodies  Himself. 

"Let  us  draw  near  with  an  ardent  desire,  and,  with  our  hands 
held  in  the  form  of  the  cross,  let  us  receive  the  body  of  the 
Crucified,  and  applying  our  eyes  and  lips  and  foreheads,^  let  us 
partake  of  the  divine  coal.  .  .  .  Isaiah  saw  a  coal.  But  a 
coal  is  not  plain  wood,  but  wood  united  with  fire.  In  like  man- 
ner the  bread  of  the  communion  also  is  not  plain  bread,  but 
bread  united  with  Deity.  But  a  body  wliich  is  united  with 
Deity  is  not  one  nature,  but  two,  but  the  body  has  one  nature, 
and  the  Deity  which  is  united  to  it  has  another,  and  the  sum  of 
both  is  not  one  nature,  but  two." 

It  does  seem  manifest  that  S.  John  is  really  speaking 
here  of  a  union  of  bread  and  Deity  all  through,  and  not 
of  a  union  of  our  Lord's  natural  flesh  and  His  Deity. 
The  two  natures  that  meet  in  the  Eucharist  are  not 

*  Dr.  Pusey  gives  on  his  p.  130,  an  interesting,  but  impossible  transla- 
tion, "having  signed  eyes  and  lips  and  brow."  That  sense  would  require 
that  the  nouns  should  be  in  the  dative,  even  if  "cross"  or  "sign"  could 
be  dispensed  with  as  a  direct  object  of  "applying."  But  the  nouns 
are  all  in  the  accusative,  as  being  themselves  direct  objects  of  the  verb. 


228       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

human  flesh  and  Godhead,  but  bread  and  Godhead. 
But  bread  thus  "united  to  Deity,"  thus  adopted  by  the 
Incarnate  Word,  becomes  truly  a  flesh  for  Him,  a  body, 
and  wholly  one  with  His  natural  flesh. 

It  may  be  added  that  a  little  later  in  this  chapter  the 
Damascene  says  that  if  some  of  the  Fathers,  like  Basil, 
did  call  the  bread  and  wine  "antitypes,"  they  were 
speaking  of  the  elements  before  consecration.  That  is, 
of  course,  an  entire  misunderstanding  on  his  part,  and  it 
seems  possible  that  he  was  not  altogether  satisfied  with 
his  own  explanation  of  the  matter.  At  any  rate,  in 
the  last  paragraph  of  the  chapter  he  uses  the  word, 
himself: 

"And  they  are  called  antitypes  of  the  things  to  come,  not 
as  being  really  Clirist's  body  and  blood,^  but  because  now  by 
means  of  these  we  partake  of  the  Deity  of  Christ  while  here- 
after we  shall  partake  of  it  spiritually  [wjjtcos,  regularly  opposed 
by  Greek  writers  to  aiadrjTws,  "by  way  of  sense"],  by  means  of 
the  vision  only." 

*  I  am  bound  to  say  that  I  am  sure  that  S.  John  Damascene  had  no 
idea  of  saying  that  the  consecrated  elements  were  not  really  Christ's 
body  and  blood.  If  I  understand  what  seems  in  English  a  rather  awk- 
ward phrase,  his  thought  is  this:  The  consecrated  elements  are  not 
called  "antitj-pes"  when  viewed  in  their  character  of  Christ's  body  and 
blood,  a  character  which  they  do  really  possess.  But  comparing  our 
earthly  experience  of  feeding  on  Christ  by  sacrament  with  the  still  higher 
and  closer  and  more  gloriously  effective  union  with  Him  which  His 
people  will  have  in  the  life  of  heaven,  this  earthly  communion  may  be 
said  to  be  an  antitype  of  that  which  shall  be  hereafter. 

Of  course,  this  is  an  utterly  different  use  of  such  a  word  as  "antitjTJe" 
from  that  of  the  cjirlicr  writers.  That  idea  of  the  material  elements,  as 
symbols  of  a  botly  broken  and  a  blood  shed,  which  so  deeply  interested 
the  early  Christian  writers,  had  lost  interest  in  the  Church's  mind  and 
heart,  and  was  not  even  rememberetl,  so  that  when  men  met  with  it 
they  did  not  know  how  to  explain  it.  That  was  a  very  great,  and  I  will 
say,  a  very  regrettable,  thcologiad  change. 


APPENDIX  I  829 

This,  it  will  be  seen,  is  a  difiPerent  use  of  the  word 
"antitype"  from  that  of  the  earher  writers,  but  it  applies 
the  word,  as  they  did,  to  the  elements  after  consecration. 
That  is  a  very  unimportant  point.  I  offer  it  partly  as  a 
matter  of  justice  to  the  memory  of  a  great  Christian 
writer,  showing  him  feeling  his  way  out  of  a  mistake. 
Far  more  important  is  the  illustration  which  comes  out 
here  of  the  habitual  teaching  of  S.  John  of  Damascus. 
He  instructs  us  that  by  means  of  a  body  which  is  bread, 
and  blood  which  is  wine,  we  partake  of  our  Lord's  Deity. 
That  is,  in  sum,  his  account  of  the  Holy  Eucharist. 


APPENDIX  II 

THE     DECLARATION     OF     THE     ICONOCLASTIC 
COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE  (a.d.  75i) 

"Let  them  be  glad  and  rejoice  and  be  full  of  boldness 
who  with  most  sincere  soul  make  and  desire  and  reverence 
the  true  image  of  Christ,  and  offer  it  for  salvation  of  soul 
and  body,  which  the  Divine  High  Priest,  having  taken 
upon  Him  a  substance  [_4>{)paiia']  which  is  ours  and  wholly 
derived  from  us,  hath  at  the  time  of  His  voluntary  passion 
delivered  to  His  faithful  ones  as  a  figure  and  most  clear 
memorial.  For  when  He  was  about  to  give  Himself  up 
voluntarily  to  His  gloriously-hymned  and  life-giving  death. 
He  took  the  bread  and  blessed  it,  and  gave  thanks  and 
brake  it,  and  distributing  to  them  He  said,  'Take,  eat, 
for  the  remission  of  sins;  this  is  My  body.'  In  like  manner 
also  imparting  the  cup  He  said,  'This  is  My  blood;  do  this 
for  My  memorial,'  as  though  no  other  form  under  heaven 
was  chosen  by  Him,  and  no  other  figure  could  image  His 
Incarnation.  Here,  then,  is  the  image  of  His  life-giving 
body,  as  it  is  made  honorably  and  worthily.  For  what 
did  the  all-wise  God  herein  contrive.'*  Nothing  else  but 
to  show  us  men  and  make  plainly  clear  to  us  the  mystery 
which  was  accomplished  in  His  dispensation,  —  that  as 
that  which  He  took  from  us  is  only  material  of  human 
substance,  which  substance  is  perfect  in  all  respects,  but 
not  bearing  the  likeness  of  any  individual  person,  lest  an 
addition  of  person  should  occur  in  the  Godhead,  so  likewise 
He  ordered  His  image  to  be  offered  as  selected  matter,  in 
fact,  the  substance  of  bread,  not  bearing  the  likeness  of 
human    form,    lest    idolatry    should    be    introduced.     As, 

230 


APPENDIX  n  231 

therefore,  that  which  is  naturally  Christ's  body  is  holy,  as 
having  been  made  divine  Ldecceef'}  so,  plainly,  that  also  which 
is  His  body  by  adoption  [piaei^,  or  His  image,  is  holy,  as 
being  made  divine  by  grace  through  a  certain  consecration. 
For  this,  as  we  have  said,  our  Master  Christ  did  bring 
about,  it  being  His  good  pleasure  that,  as  He  made  the 
flesh  which  He  took  on  Him  divine  by  its  own  natural 
consecration  arising  out  of  union  with  Himself,  so  also  the 
bread  of  the  Eucharist,  as  no  untrue  image  of  His  natural 
flesh,  should  be  made  a  divine  body  by  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  through  the  mediation  of  the  priest  who  makes 
the  oblation,  transforming  what  is  common  to  what  is 
holy.  In  fine,  the  flesh  of  the  Lord  with  its  natural  gifts 
of  life  and  thought  was  anointed  with  Divinity  by  the 
Holy  Ghost;  in  like  manner  also  the  God-given  image  of 
His  flesh,  the  divine  bread,  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
together  with  the  cup  of  the  life-giving  blood  from  His 
side.  This,  then  has  been  shown  to  be  no  untrue  image 
of  the  Incarnation  of  Christ  our  God,  as  was  said  before, 
which  He  Himself,  the  true  Maker  and  Quickener  of  nature, 
hath  delivered  with  His  own  voice."  ^ 

The  above  declaration  seems  a  plain  setting  forth  of  the 
idea  that  by  an  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  "by 
grace  through  a  certain  consecration,"  dimly  discerned, 
not  definitely  understood,  the  very  elements  of  bread 
and  wine  are  made  to  be  (not  contain,  or  carry,  or  effec- 
tively represent)  a  divine  body,  a  divine  blood,  which  may 
indeed  be  identified  with  the  body  and  blood  seen  on  the 
cross,  but  are  not  identical  with  these. 

I  know  that  the  Iconoclastic  Council  has  an  unhappy 
reputation  with  Catholic  theologians.  Even  so  Prot- 
estant a  writer  as  Archbishop  Trench  quotes  approvingly 
the  earlier  language  of  Dean  Milman,  who  said,  "Hatred 
of  images,  in  the  process  of  the  strife,  might  become,  as 
^  Hardouin,  Concilia  iv.  368,  369;  Stone  I.  148-150. 


232       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

it  did,  a  fanaticism,  it  could  never  become  a  religion. 
Iconoclasm  might  proscribe  idolatry,  but  it  had  no  power 
of  kindling  a  purer  faith."  Certainly  the  Iconoclastic 
movement  was  base.  It  remains  that  the  theology  of 
the  338  bishops  in  regard  to  the  Eucharist  seems  to  be 
entirely  in  accord  with  that  of  S.  John  of  Damascus, 
whom  in  the  matter  of  image-worship  they  most  severely 
condemned.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Second  Council  of 
Constantinople  (a.d.  787),  restoring  all  things,  anathema- 
tized the  members  of  the  Council  of  754,  and  approved, 
though  they  did  not  adopt  as  a  conciliar  decree,  a  state- 
ment in  which  it  was  roundly  asserted  that  when  the 
Fathers  of  old  time  called  the  bread  and  wine  types  and 
figures  of  our  Lord's  body  and  blood  they  were  speaking 
of  the  elements  before  consecration.  The  statement 
fm*ther  denounces  the  idea  that  the  divine  oblation  is 
made  "  by  adoption "  as  "  sheer  madness,"  and  says 
that  the  use  of  the  word  "  image  "  for  the  consecrated 
elements  is  "  insane."  If  this  was  intended  to  indicate 
a  real  cleavage  in  eucharistic  doctrine,  it  must  be  said 
that  it  was  the  Iconoclastic  Council  that  showed  in  this 
particular  the  truer  understanding  of  the  Church's  past. 
But  I  think  that  rather  the  tradition  of  eucharistic  belief 
and  teaching  was  still  unbroken.  The  habit  of  disowning 
the  old  language,  which  had  been  so  free  in  calling  the 
eucharistic  body  and  blood  "figures"  and  "symbols" 
and  "types,"  was  an  unhealthy  habit.  It  was  a  sign  of 
a  coming  change.  But  S.  John  of  Damascus  seems  to 
teach  the  old  ideas,  though  he  was  beginning  to  dislike 
and  shrink  away  from  the  old  words.  At  any  rate  the 
338  bishops  stand  for  a  theological  tradition  that  is  by 
no  means  negligible.  I  think  that  it  was  a  genuinely 
primitive  tradition. 


NOTE  A 

OF  DE.  PUSEY'S  NOTE  ON  "IN.  UNDER,  WITH  THE 

BREAD  AND  WINE,"  AS  USED  BY 

THE  FATHERS 

In  Dr.  Pusey's  Catena  (pp.  131-134),  he  has  a  Note  on 
the  use  of  the  prepositions  "in,  under,  with,"  as  expressing 
the  relation  of  our  Lord's  body  and  blood  to  the  elements 
of  bread  and  wine,  in  the  language  of  the  Fathers.  His 
object  is  to  show  the  continued  existence  of  the  bread 
and  wine  after  the  consecration,  and  most  of  his  passages 
stand  good  for  that  purpose.  His  own  interpretation  of 
the  passages  which  he  brings  forward  would  have  a 
further  consequence,  of  proving  what  was  with  him,  of 
course,  a  constant  assumption,  that  the  bread  and  our 
Lord's  body  were  two  diflFerent  things,  and  correspondingly 
that  the  wine  and  our  Lord's  blood  were  two  different 
things.  I  have  ventured  the  assertion  that  I  have  not 
found  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  first  five 
centuries  any  language  which  fairly  carries  this  implica- 
tion, that  in  the  Eucharist  the  consecrated  bread  is  a 
vehicle  or  veil  of  our  Lord's  body,  and  the  consecrated 
wine  a  vehicle  or  veil  of  our  Lord's  blood.  I  feel  bound, 
therefore,  to  examine  the  passages  offered  by  Dr.  Pusey 
in  detail. 

He  presents  the  names  of  ten  writers  flourishing  before 
A.D.  550.     It  may  be  interesting  to  tabulate  them. 

1.  Tertulhan. 

2.  S.  Cyprian. 

3.  S.  Hilary  of  Poictiers. 

4.  S.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem. 

233 


234       THE  EUCIIARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

5.  S.  Ephraim. 

6.  S.  Epiphanius. 

7.  S.  Augustine. 

8.  S.  Chrysostom. 

9.  S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria. 

10.  S.  James  of  Sarug. 

1,  and  2.  The  i)assages  from  Tertullian  and  S.  Cyprian 
have  been  examined  in  Lecture  II.  Tertullian's  phrase, 
"In  the  bread  is  understood  His  body,"  seems  to  be 
plainly  an  example  of  what  I  have  called  the  "in"  of 
identity.  Dr.  Stone  says,  "He  interprets  the  words  of 
institution  as  placing  our  Lord's  body  under  the  head 
of,  or  in  the  category  of,  bread."  S.  Cyprian  speaks  of 
our  Lord's  blood  as  appearing  in  the  cup,  —  exactly 
what  it  does  not,  according  to  the  Roman  doctrine  and 
that  of  the  Oxford  School,  —  but  he  does  not  speak  of 
our  Lord's  blood  as  being,  or  seeming  to  be,  in  the  wine. 
I  must  repeat  here,  what  I  have  said  in  Lecture  II, 
that  Dr.  Pusey's  statement,  "The  'cup'  in  the  Fathers  is 
altogether  equivalent  to  the  'element  of  wine,'  "  is  a  state- 
ment altogether  unwarranted.  In  that  very  quotation 
from  S.  Cyprian  we  have  mention  of  a  condition  "when 
the  cup  is  without  that  wine  whereby  the  blood  is  set 
forth."  Wlien  S.  Cyprian  speaks  of  our  Lord's  blood 
as  being  "in  the  cup,"  he  means  "in  the  chalice,"  and 
I  hold  that  when  he  writes  "blood,"  he  means  the 
consecrated  wine. 

These  two  witnesses  are  all  that  are  presented  for  the 
first  three  hundred  years  of  the  Church's  life.  They  do 
not  contradict  my  statement  that  the  Fathers  never 
speak  of  the  consecrated  elements  as  vehicles  or  veils  of 
our  Lord's  body  and  blood. 

The  next  five  witnesses  named  by  Dr.  Pusey  are  all  of 
the  fourth  century. 


NOTES  235 

3.  S.  Hilary  of  Poictiers.  The  quotations  from  this 
great,  but  difficult,  writer  are  found  in  a  short  passage  of 
his  book  De  Trinitate  (viii.  13-17).  He  is  arguing  that 
our  Lord  is  one  with  the  Father  in  Nature,  and  not 
merely  in  will,  and  he  refers  to  the  Eucharist  as  making 
us  one  in  nature  with  the  Father.  If  we  are  made  of 
one  nature  with  the  Divine  Father  through  the  Word, 
the  Word  Himself  cannot  be  any  less  than  one  in  nature 
with  the  Father.  Dr.  Pusey's  first  quotation  runs  thus: 
"We  truly  receive  the  Word  made  flesh  through  the 
food  of  the  Lord."  The  Latin  is  "  Vere  Verhum  carnem 
factum  cibo  Dominico  sumimus."  It  is  to  be  observed 
that  nothing  is  said  here  of  receiving  our  Lord's  flesh  at 
all.  "We  receive  the  Word- made-flesh."  It  is  the 
Incarnate  Word,  not  His  flesh,  that  we  are  here  said  to 
receive.  The  Word-made-flesh  is  everywhere  present, 
but  His  flesh  is  not  everywhere  present.  Nothing  is 
here  asserted,  then,  concerning  any  presence  of  our 
Lord's  natural  flesh.  The  passage  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  subject  of  this  Note.  Such  being  the  case,  it 
might  seem  not  worth  while  to  point  out  an  uncareful 
piece  of  translation;  but  I  prefer  to  take  a  passage  where 
nothing  of  importance  depends  on  it,  to  illustrate  a 
certain  weakness  of  Dr.  Pusey's  Catena.  Dr.  Pusey, 
whom  Newman  loved  to  call  6  Me7as  (the  Great  One), 
was  a  man  of  wide  reading,  and  an  enormous  accumulation 
of  learning;  but  his  translations  from  Latin  and  Greek 
writers  are  not  always  closely  accurate.  I  do  not  com- 
plain that  they  are  not  closely  literal.  To  be  closely 
literal  in  translation  is  sometimes  to  fail  of  carrying  over 
the  intended  meaning  safely  from  one  language  to  the 
other.  But  there  are  failures  in  accuracy.  Here  is  an 
example.  Cibo  Dominico  should  be  rendered,  "  by  means 
of  the  food  of  the  Lord."    The  word  "through,"  care- 


236       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

fully  italicized  in  Dr.  Pusey's  Note,  suggests  much  more 
in  the  direction  in  which  his  mind  was  turning  than  lies 
really  in  the  Latin  phrase. 

The  next  quotation  seems  at  first  more  telling.  "We 
receive  under  the  mystery  the  flesh  of  His  own  body." 
But  sub  mysterio  will  bear  the  rendering,  "under  a  mys- 
tery," which  will  be  a  very  different  thing.  Perhaps  also 
the  word  "own"  should  be  omitted.  For  both  these 
corrections  I  have  the  authority  of  Dr.  Pusey  himself. 
On  page  394  of  the  same  book,  he  gives  the  (really  accu- 
rate) rendering,  "We  truly  receive  under  a  mystery  the 
flesh  of  His  body."  I  take  it  that  "under  a  mystery" 
means  no  more  nor  less  than  in  "a  sacramental  way." 
It  does  not  define.  And  mysterium  is  not  equivalent  to 
sacramentum  with  S.  Hilary,  for  he  speaks  of  "the  mystery 
of  the  sacraments"  (viii.  15). 

Dr.  Pusey  says  further  that  S.  Hilary  speaks  of  "the 
flesh  to  be  communicated  to  us  under  the  sacrament." 
This  is  a  curious  mistake.  S.  Hilary  speaks  of  our  Lord 
as  mingling  the  nature  of  His  flesh  with  the  nature  of 
eternity  "under  a  sacrament  of  flesh  to  be  communicated 
to  us."  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  the  word 
"sacrament"  refers  to  the  elements,  nothing  about  flesh 
being  present  under  a  certain  material  element,  or  being 
communicated  under  a  certain  material  element.  Dr. 
Pusey  himself  recognizes  (on  his  own  p.  394)  that  "under 
the  sacrament"  is  in  relation  with  "hath  mingled." 
"Under  the  sacrament  of  the  flesh  to  be  communicated 
to  us"  is  his  own  translation.^  Sub  sacramento  would 
seem  to  mean  "by  way  of  sacrament."  At  any  rate  S. 
Hilary  has  nothing  to  say  of  our  Lord's  body  being 
hidden  under  a  veil  of  bread. 

^  The  Latin  is  "et  naturam  carnis  Suae  ad  naturam  cternitatis  sub 
Sacramento  nobis  communicaudic  curnis  admiscuit." 


NOTES  237 

4.  S.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  is  quoted  as  saying,  "In  the 
type  of  bread  there  is  given  to  you  His  body,  and  in  the 
type  of  wine.  His  blood."  My  own  understanding  of 
this  passage  would  be  that  it  is  an  example  of  the  "in" 
of  identity  again,  as  in  TertuUian's  use.  In  receiving 
the  consecrated  bread  we  receive  our  Lord's  body  in  a 
sense.  All  the  Fathers  call  the  bread  our  Lord's  body, 
and  most  of  them  call  it  a  type  of  his  body.  It  is  the 
same  thing  of  which  they  speak  under  both  names. 

5.  S.  Ephraim's  sayings  have  been  examined  in  Lecture 
IV.  He  has  not  a  single  passage  in  which  he  speaks  of 
our  Lord's  body  as  being  in  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist, 
or  His  blood  in  the  wine.  Always  he  speaks  of  some 
heavenly  power  as  being  in  the  elements,  and  that  power 
(called  "Spirit"  and  "Fire")  would  seem  to  be  our 
Lord's  Person,  not  His  body  (natural)  or  His  blood. 

6.  S.  Ephiphanius,  like  S.  Ephraim,  says  that  "the 
bread  indeed  is  food,  but  the  Might  in  it  is  for  giving  of 
life."  There  is  nothing  about  our  Lord's  natural  flesh 
being  in  the  bread. 

7.  S.  Augustine  is  represented  by  three  sayings.  In 
the  Sermon  itself  Dr.  Pusey  had  quoted  the  passage, 
"Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  commended  His  body  and  blood 
in  those  things  which  are,  out  of  many,  reduced  into  some 
one."  It  would  seem  to  be  another  example  of  the  "in" 
of  identity.  And  so  may  be  understood  the  two  other 
phrases:  "Receive  ye  that  in  the  bread  which  hung  on 
the  cross;  receive  ye  that  in  the  cup  which  flowed  from 
the  side."  And  again,  "We  drink  His  blood  under  the 
form  and  flavor  of  wine."  All  three  sayings  will  cer- 
tainly bear  Dr.  Pusey 's  understanding  of  them.  They 
will  bear  another  understanding  equally  well. 

8.  From  S.  Chrysostom  only  two  phrases  are  suggested: 
"This  which  is  in  the  cup  is  that  which  flowed  from  the 


238       TIIE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

side,  and  of  that  do  we  partake";  and  "The  blood  in  the 
cup  is  drawn  for  thy  cleansing  from  the  undefiled  side." 
These  have  no  bearing  at  all.  They  are  presented  with 
an  assumption  that  always  in  the  Fathers  to  say,  "the 
cup,"  is  the  same  as  to  say,  "the  consecrated  wine." 
The  assumption  is  not  well  founded. 

9.  S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  is  presented  as  a  witness 
with  a  single  phrase,  which  seems  to  be  a  simj)le  phrase 
of  identification  rather  than  of  inclusion:  "In  the  life- 
giving  Eucharist  we  receive  in  bread  and  wine  His  holy 
flesh  and  precious  blood." 

10.  S.  James  of  Sarug,  a  Syrian  who  was  made  a 
bishop  A.D.  519,  is  quoted  (in  the  Sermon)  as  saying, 
"He  from  whom  the  spirits  of  fire  have  their  glow.  Him 
in  bread  and  wine  thou  seest  on  the  table."  Of  course, 
this  stands  good  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the 
consecrated  elements  were  regarded  as  being  still  bread 
and  wine.  But  that  which  is  seen  in  the  bread  and  wine 
by  the  eye  of  faith  is  not  said  to  be  our  Lord's  body,  but 
our  Lord's  Person. 

No  one  of  these  ten  writers  seem  to  give  any  indication 
of  distinguishing  between  bread  and  our  Lord's  body, 
or  of  looking  upon  the  consecrated  bread  as  a  shrine  of 
our  Lord's  body.  On  the  other  hand,  I  hail  with  joy  the 
quotation  given  near  the  end  of  Dr.  Pusey's  Note  which 
I  have  been  analyzing,  from  S.  Hesychius,  a  Presbyter  of 
Jerusalem  (about  a.d.  425) : 

"  That  mystery  is  at  once  bread  and  flesh." 

I  could  not  ask  for  a  better  statement  of  what  I  have 
been  trying  to  convey. 

Just  outside  the  hmit  of  writers  flourishing  before  a.d. 
550  comes  an  author  not  mentioned  in  the  Note,  but 
quoted   in  p.  38  of  the  Sermon,  Facundus,  Bishop  of 


NOTES  239 

Hermiana,  in  North  Africa,  who  was  deeply  engaged  in 
the  controversy  known  as  that  of  "the  Three  Chapters," 
on  the  side  of  the  defense  of  the  authors  accused  of 
Nestorian  doctrine. 

"The  Sacrament  of  His  body  and  blood  which  is  in  the  con- 
secrated bread  and  cup,  we  call  His  body  and  blood,  not  that 
the  bread  is  properly  His  body,  or  the  cup  His  blood,  but  because 
they  contain  in  them  the  mystery  of  His  body  and  blood." 

Such  is  the  careful  language  of  Facundus.  He  makes 
it  clear  that  to  his  mind  the  bread  and  wine  are  called 
our  Lord's  body  and  blood  non-literally.  He  does  not 
say  that  our  Lord's  body  and  blood  are  in  the  bread  and 
wine.  He  has  two  opportunities  to  say  that,  and  both 
times  he  says  something  else.  "The  Sacrament  of  His 
body  and  blood"  is  "in  the  consecrated  bread  and  cup"; 
"they  contain  in  them  the  mystery  of  His  body  and 
blood."  The  thing  that  Facundus  is  called  in  to  say  is 
just  what  he  will  not  say. 

The  Venerable  Bede  (d.  a.d.  735)  is  too  late  to  be  an 
important  witness  to  primitive  theological  movements, 
and  Theophylact  (d.  a.d.  1110)  is  of  the  last  degree  of 
unimportance. 

NOTES 

OF  OUR  LORD'S  PHRASE,  "MY  BLOOD  WHICH  IS 
BEING  SHED" 

I  SUPPOSE  that  when  men  contend  for  the  literal  inter- 
pretation of  Holy  Scripture,  they  regard  the  opposite  of 
"literal"  as  being  "evasive."  If,  however,  our  Lord 
ever  uses  figurative  language,  to  interpret  that  language 
literally  would   not  be   right,  and  would   be  precisely 


240       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

"evasive."  I  do  not  care,  then,  to  be  literal  in  all  ray 
interpretations,  but  I  do  care  a  great  deal  about  being 
straightforward.  I  must  call  attention  to  one  more  point 
in  which  certain  eucharistic  theories  are  not  straightfor- 
ward in  interpretation. 

In  S.  Matthew  xxvi.  28,  and  S.  Mark  xiv.  24,  and  in 
the  received  text  of  S.  Luke  xxii.  20,  we  find  our  Lord 
speaking  of  His  blood  (or  in  S.  Luke,  of  the  cup  which 
He  had  blessed)  as  "  that  which  is  being  poured  out  for  you  " 
(to  kKxvvvoiJLevov) .  Now  that  phrase  cannot  apply  literally, 
it  cannot  be  applied  straightforwardly,  to  our  Lord's 
natural  blood.  It  is  most  true  that  our  Lord  was  at 
that  moment  engaged  in  a  great  act  of  dedication  of 
Himself  to  suffering  and  death.  He  was  bringing  Him- 
self as  a  willing  Victim  to  be  slain,  that  He  might  become 
the  supreme  Sacrifice  of  the  world.  But  it  is  simply  not 
true  that  the  blood  in  His  veins  was  at  that  time  being 
poured  out.  It  was  true  of  His  sacramental  blood,  the 
consecrated  wine.  It  was  not  true  of  His  natural  blood. 
The  Vulgate  Version  gives  effundetur,  "shall  be  poured 
out,"  in  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark,  and  fundetur,  "shall 
be  poured,"  in  S.  Luke,  the  change  of  tense  from  present 
to  future  carrying  a  serious  change  of  meaning.  Of  our 
modern  Revisions,  the  English  Revision  gives  "which  is 
shed"  in  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark,  but  recognizes  in  S. 
Luke  that  the  phrase  belongs  to  "cup,"  and  not  to 
"blood,"  and  so  gives  "even  that  which  is  poured  out 
for  you."  The  American  Revision  honors  itself  by 
giving  "poured  out"  in  all  three  cases.  But  really  to 
make  a  modern  reader  understand  what  was  really 
meant,  it  should  have  been,  "which  is  being  poured 
out." 


NOTES  241 

NOTE  C 

THE   USE   OF   THE  TITLE  Aoros    BY  S.   JUSTIN 
MARTYR  AS  A  TITLE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST 

Both  in  Bp.  Kaye's  valuable  study  of  Justin  Martyr 
and  in  the  article  Justinus  Martyr  in  the  Dictionary  of 
Christian  Biography,  S.  Justin  is  charged  with  confusing 
the  operations  of  the  Second  and  Third  Persons  of  the 
Blessed  Trinity.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  agreed  that 
when  he  speaks  of  "the  Spirit,"  or  "the  prophetic  Spirit," 
he  ascribes  to  Him  exactly  such  operations  as  later 
theologians  do.  The  ground  of  charge  of  "confusion" 
is  that  S.  Justin  repeatedly  ascribes  such  operations  to 
"the  Word."  I  ask  consideration  for  some  facts  which 
seem  to  point  to  the  conclusion  that  S.  Justin  used  the 
title  "Word"  (Aoyos)  quite  indiscriminately  for  the  Son 
of  God  and  the  Spirit  of  God.  If  there  be  any  "con- 
fusion," it  is  not  in  S.  Justin's  theology,  but  in  his  use  of 
a  word  which  in  his  time  had  not  become  technical,  and 
now  has  become  technical. 

The  first  piece  of  evidence  is  found  in  the  very  passage 
quoted  on  p.  29.  S.  Justin  speaks  of  our  Saviour,  as 
"having  been  made  flesh  by  the  Word  of  God."  To 
represent  the  phUosopher-theologian  as  having  taught 
that  our  Lord  was  made  flesh  by  Himself  would  be  to 
represent  him  as  individualist  to  the  last  degree.  All 
Christian  thought  was  filled  with  the  idea  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  was  in  His  human  nature  "conceived  by  the  Holy 
Ghost."  When,  then,  we  read  in  an  earUer  chapter 
(xxxiii.)  of  the  First  Apology,  "It  is  wrong  to  understand 
the  Spirit  and  Power  of  God  as  anything  else  than  the 
Word,  who  is  also  the  First-begotten  of  God,  as  the 
foresaid  prophet  Moses  declared,  and  it  was  This  that 


242       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

when  it  came  upon  the  Virgin  and  overshadowed  her, 
caused  her  to  conceive,"  we  must  take  our  choice  between 
two  lines  of  explanation.  We  must  either  treat  S.  Justin 
as  contradicting  the  Creed  of  his  day,  or  we  must  recognize 
that  he  regarded  the  Force  which  proceeded  from  God 
as  Word  and  Wisdom  and  Power  as  a  dual  Force,  con- 
sisting of  the  Son  and  of  the  Spirit,  and  that  he  used 
such  titles  as  freely  of  the  One  Person  as  of  the  Other. 
To  add  force  to  this  dilemma  we  have  in  the  closing 
words  of  that  same  chapter  a  further  exclusive  claim  for 
the  Power  here  described  as  "the  Divine  Word."  "And 
that  the  prophets  are  inspired  by  no  other  than  the 
Divine  Word,  even  you  [the  Roman  Emperors],  as  I 
fancy,  will  grant."  "By  no  other  than  the  Divine 
Word."  Later  theology  may  ascribe  inspiration  to  the 
Divine  Word  in  one  view,  and  to  the  Divine  Spurit  in 
another.  It  would  certainly  say  that  inspiration  was, 
at  least  mainly,  an  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Here 
again,  either  S.  Justin  excluded  Him  from  being  the 
Great  Inspirer  (an  office  which  he  does  actually  ascribe 
to  "the  prophetic  Spirit"  over  and  over),  or  else  he 
includes  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  under  a  common  name. 

But  how,  it  may  be  enquired,  could  a  second  century 
theologian  use  the  title  "Word"  indiscriminately  for  the 
Son  and  for  the  Holy  Ghost?  The  answer  is  really  very 
simple.  "Word"  (Aoyos)  is  a  figurative  expression,  and 
as  a  figurative  expression  it  was  perfectly  applicable  to 
either  the  Divine  Son  or  the  Divine  Spirit.  Either  Son 
or  Spirit  might  perfectly  well  be  described  as  the  ex- 
pression of  God's  thought  to  men.  It  is  a  common- 
place of  theological  students  that  for  some  centuries  the 
Wisdom  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  those  of  the 
Apocrypha,  had  been  preparing  the  way  for  the  revelation 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  by  their  bold  personification 


NOTES  243 

of  the  Wisdom  of  God  as  His  Eternal  Companion,  and  as 
His  Agent  in  the  creation  and  government  of  the  world. 
What  has  been  too  little  noticed  is  the  fact  that  S.  John's 
great  title  A670S,  which  we  translate  as  "Word,"  is  only 
the  most  natural  and  obvious  development  of  the  Old 
Testament  idea  of  the  Divine  Wisdom.  "Wisdom"  may 
be  taken  as  a  most  natural  word  to  be  used  to  repre- 
sent God's  meaning,  uttered  or  unuttered.  But  when 
men  came  to  feel  with  a  new  vividness  that  God  had 
uttered  His  meaning  on  a  great  scale,  and  was  sending  a 
Messenger,  who  yet  was  inseparable  from  Himself  and 
part  of  Himself,  to  speak  for  Him  to  His  world,  it  was 
to  be  expected  that  they  would  use  such  a  word  as  Aoyos 
rather  than  So(/)ta,  "the  Expression  of  God,"  rather  than 
"the  Wisdom  of  God,"  to  convey  this  great  new  thought. 
I  am  aware  that  A670S  was  used  by  philosophers  for 
Meaning  Un-uttered,  for  Thought,  or  Reason,  or  Mind, 
in  God,  and  not  simply  for  Expression.  But  it  remains 
that  the  first  Christian  writers  who  give  us  the  word 
Aoyos  for  the  Expression  of  God's  Thought  do  not  seem 
to  have  been  philosophers.  It  would  seem  to  be  the 
case  that  they  were  attracted  to  the  title  Aoyos  ("Word") 
as  a  substitute  for  the  title  So^ta  ("Wisdom"),  precisely 
because  to  them  Aoyos  meant  Thought  Expressed,  Thought 
uttered  by  God  and  heard  by  men.  But  this  growing 
revelation  of  the  Wisdom  of  God  as  a  Power  that  was  an 
inseparable  part  of  God,  and  yet  had  a  Personality  of 
Its  own,  did,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  include  the  revelation  of 
two  Personalities,  when  the  revelation  came  to  be  com- 
plete in  Christ.  This  Wisdom  of  God  was  not  one 
Person,  but  two.  This  Word  of  God  spoke  not  with  one 
Voice  only,  but  with  two  Voices.  As  a  further  illustration 
of  the  workings  of  S.  Justin's  mind,  let  me  point  to 
Chapter  xiv.  of  the  First  Apology,  where  we  read  of  our 


244       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Lord  that  "He  was  no  sophist,  but  His  Word  was  the 
Power  of  God."  I  am  sure  that  I  am  justified  in  capi- 
talizing "Word"  here,  and  treating  the  reference  as  a 
reference  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Holy  Spirit,  which  is 
the  "Breath"  of  God,  and  the  Expression,  the  Uttered 
Mind,  the  ''Word"  of  God  the  Divine  Father,  is  also 
the  Spirit,  the  "Breath,"  the  Expression,  the  "Word" 
of  our  Lord  in  His  earthly  ministry,  and  whether  He 
speaks  the  Mind  of  Son  or  Father,  He  is  always,  and 
equally,  the  "Power"  of  God.^ 

I  had  been  for  years  convinced  that  S.  Justin  really 
had  this  use  of  the  word  A670S,  to  us  most  curious,  to 
him  supremely  natural;  but  I  knew  of  no  confirmatory 
evidence  from  any  other  early  Christian  writer.  I  am 
indebted  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  C.  C.  Edmunds,  Professor  of 
the  Literature  and  Interpretation  of  the  New  Testament, 
in  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  where  these  Lectures 

*  If  any  one  should  do  me  the  honor  to  follow  up  this  subject,  and 
examine  the  references  in  Bp.  Kaye's  Justin  Martyr  (note  on  p.  87)  care 
should  be  exercised.  Bp.  Kaye  seems  to  have  reversed  the  meaning  of 
the  passage  just  quoted,  and  taken  it  to  mean,  "His  Word  [Our  Lord 
Himself]  was  the  Power  of  God."  Also  there  is  a  misleading  reference 
to  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  chapter  cii.,  which  contains  a  passage  to 
which  a  tradition  of  mis-translation  seems  to  attach.  It  is  found  in  the 
P.  G.  6,  col.  713,  and  the  Greek  runs  as  follows:  Merd  70^  t6  KrjpO^cu 
t6v  rap' Avtov  S.6yov  ifSpcoOivra,  6  Hariip  OapaTuataOat  Avtop  eKeKplxfi, 
Sv  kyeyeuvrjKti.  I  take  it  that  this  means  "For  after  Ilis  having  pro- 
claimed the  Word  that  proceedeth  from  Him  as  having  been  made  Man, 
the  Father  had  adjudged  that  He  whom  He  had  begotten  should  be  put 
to  death."  Contrast  with  this  version  that  of  the  Antc-Nicene  Christian 
Library  (I.  250),  —  "For  the  Father  had  decreed  that  He  whom  He 
had  begotten  should  be  put  to  death,  but  not  before  He  had  grown  to 
manhood  and  proclaimed  the  Word  which  proceeded  from  Him."  (The 
Latin  Version  in  the  Patrologia  Graeca  is  much  worse.)  In  this  passage, 
Bp.  Kaye  takes  T-iv  irap  Kinov  \6yov  as  meaning  "the  message  given  by 
God  to  the  prophets,"  as  in  the  translation  of  the  A.-N.  L. 


NOTES  245 

were  delivered,  for  calling  my  attention  to  a  striking 
little  book  of  65  pages,  Dr.  Rendel  Harris's  Origin  of 
the  Prologue  of  S.  John's  Gospel.  It  is  there  shown 
abundantly,  I  think,  that  the  term  Aoyos  was  a  sequel  to 
(I  think,  myself,  as  I  have  tried  to  show  above,  that  it 
was  a  perfectly  natural  development  out  of)  the  2o0ta  of 
Proverbs  viii.  and  Wisdom  vii.,  and  also  that  such  titles 
as  "the  Wisdom  of  God,"  "the  Power  of  God,"  "the 
Hand  of  God,"  and  even  "the  Spirit  of  God,"  are  used 
of  both  Son  and  Spirit.  The  finest  example  of  this 
confusion  of  titles  is  found  in  the  book  Ad  Autolycum  of 
S.  Theophilus  of  Antioch  (ii.  10;  P.  G.  6,  col.  1064,  1065): 

"This  Word  is  called  Beginning  {'Apxh)  ...  It  was  He 
who,  being  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  the  Beginning  and  the  Wisdom 
and  the  Power  of  the  Most  High,  descended  on  the  prophets  and 
through  them  discoursed  of  the  creation  of  the  world  and  all 
other  matters.  Not  that  the  prophets  themselves  were  present 
at  the  creation  of  the  world;  but  what  was  present  was  the 
Wisdom  of  God  that  was  in  it,  and  His  Holy  Word  that  was 
always  with  Him." 

One  sees  here  the  beginning  of  recognition  that  in  the 
Creation-story  place  must  be  made  for  two  Companions 
of  God,  and  not  One  only.  In  Chapter  xv.  of  the  same 
book  Theophilus  comes  out  quite  clearly.  In  this  passage 
the  word  "Trinity"  (rptas)  appears  for  the  first  time. 
The  three  days  of  creation  before  the  making  of  the 
great  luminaries  are  said  to  be  "types  of  the  Trinity, 
i.  e.,  of  God,  and  His  Word,  and  His  Wisdom."  Here  is 
both  recognition  of  the  Three  Divine  Persons,  —  that 
recognition  was  not  new,  —  and  also  recognition  of  the 
need  of  using  particular  terms  as  distinctive  of  the  Second 
and  Third  Persons.  But  Dr.  Harris  is  quite  justified  in 
speaking  of  an  earlier  time  —  Theophilus  is  about  a 
generation  later  than  Justin  —  which  was  marked  by  "a 


246       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Christian  Duality,  the  Holy  Spirit  being  not  yet  come, 
in  a  theological  sense,  because  the  Divine  Wisdom  has  not 
been  divided  into  Logos  and  Pneuma."    Harris,  p.  49. 

This  is  going  far  afield  from  my  eucharistic  subject. 
My  excuse  is  that  I  was  quite  sure  that  without  some 
elaboration  of  defense,  I  should  be  assured  that  my 
claim  that  "the  Word  that  proceeds  from  Him"  meant 
the  Holj'^  Spirit,  was  utterly  foundationless  and  absurd, 
while  I  think  it  to  be,  on  the  other  hand,  a  secure  in- 
ference, and  the  key  to  the  interpretation  of  the  passage 
where  those  words  appear. 

I  may  add  that  it  is  Theophilus  (Ad  Autolycum  ii.  18) 
who  first  shows  that  he  recognizes  that  the  Creative 
Hand  of  God  must  be  described  as  two  Hands.  He  has 
been  saying  tliat  after  creating  everything  else  "by 
Word,"  God  felt  that  for  the  one  great  act  of  the  creation 
of  man  He  must  use  His  Hands.  So  "as  if  needing  help, 
God  is  found  saying,  'Let  Us  make  man  in  Our  image, 
after  Our  likeness.'  He  hath  not  said,  'Let  Us  make,' 
to  any  one  save  to  His  own  Word,  and  to  His  own  Wis- 
dom." Later,  in  Irenaeus,  one  will  find  mention  of 
"the  Hand  of  God"  as  His  instrument  in  creation,  and 
again  of  "the  Hands,"  and  when  Hands  are  named,  it 
will  be  these  two,  —  God's  Word  and  God's  Wisdom. 
But  the  clear  distinction  of  two  Hands  of  God  took  time. 
It  may  be  worth  while  to  invite  any  student  who  may 
pass  from  the  reading  of  this  note  to  an  examination  of 
Dr.  Harris's  book  to  the  parallel  (and  contrast)  of  the 
uses  of  A670S  and  So0ta.  A670S  ("Word")  is  used  in 
early  Christian  thought,  first  of  our  Lord,  then  of  our 
Lord  and  of  the  Holy  Si)irit  alike,  and  then,  finally,  as  a 
distinctive  title  of  our  Lord,  the  Divine  Son.  So^ia 
("Wisdom")  is  used  first  of  our  Lord,  then  of  our  Lord 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  alike,  and  then  as  a  distinctive 


NOTES  247 

title  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  by  Theophilus  and  Irenaeus. 
The  use  of  2o0ta  as  a  distinctive  title  of  the  Spirit,  not 
having  a  great  Scripture  passage  like  S.  John  i.  1  to  back 
it  up,  and  having,  on  the  other  hand,  1  Cor.  i.  30  ("Christ, 
who  was  made  unto  us  Wisdom")  to  warn  students 
against  pressing  it  unduly,  has  never  so  prevailed  as  to 
blind  men's  eyes  to  the  possibihty  of  applying  it  to  the 
Divine  Son.  Without  such  safeguarding,  the  title  Aoyos 
has  come  to  seem  to  be  a  really  exclusive  possession  of 
the  Second  Person  of  the  Blessed  Trinity. 


NOTE   D 

ON  SOME  PASSAGES  OF  TERTULLIAN  WHICH 
SEEM  TO  HAVE  BEEN  MISUNDERSTOOD  BY 
TRANSLATORS 

Tertullian  read  in  his  Version  of  the  Book  of  Jeremiah 
(xi.  19),  Mittamus  lignum  in  'panem  ejus,  "Let  us  cast 
wood  upon  his  bread,"  where  we  read,  "Let  us  destroy 
the  tree  with  the  fruit  thereof."  The  present  Hebrew 
text  means  hterally,  "Let  us  destroy  the  tree  in  its  bread," 
the  translators  holding  that  "bread"  is  used  poetically 
for  "the  power  to  nourish."  The  LXX  translators  had 
evidently  another  Hebrew  verb  before  them. 

In  this  phrase  Tertullian  and  other  early  writers  saw 
plainest  prediction  of  the  cross  of  Christ  and  of  His 
body.  As  they  would  put  it,  the  prophet  here  called 
our  Lord's  body  by  the  name  of  bread.  Tertullian 
himself  refers  to  this  phrase  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah  in 
three  passages  of  his  writings,  Adversus  Judaeos,  x.,  and 
Contra  Marcionem  III.   19,  and  IV.  40.^    In  all  three 

»  P.  L.  2,  668,  669;    2,  376;    2,  491,  492. 


248       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

passages  Tertullian  refers  to  acts  of  figurative  meaning, 
—  our  Lord's  calling  bread  His  body,  and  the  prophet's 
calling  our  Lord's  body  bread.  The  general  sense  of 
the  passages  is  beyond  question,  but  a  certain  curious 
ambiguity  of  the  Latin  language  has  betrayed  translators 
into  error  in  rendering  a  few  phrases.  All  Latin  scholars 
know  well  that  such  English  sentences  as  "I  call  the 
king  a  wise  man,"  and  "I  call  the  wise  man  a  king," 
may  be  represented  by  the  same  Latin  words.  Regem 
sapientem  appello  will  stand  for  one  of  these  meanings 
as  well  as  for  the  other.  If  there  were  no  emphasis  on 
either  of  the  object-words,  it  may  be  thought  that  the 
direct  object  would  be  more  likely  to  be  put  first  by  a 
Latin  writer.  But  the  first  place  in  the  sentence  may  be 
taken  as  a  place  of  emphasis,  and  if  the  writer  desired  to 
emphasize  his  secondary  object,  he  would  by  all  means 
put  it  first,  —  "A  king  do  I  call  the  wise  man."  Order 
of  words  does  not  entirely  clear  the  ambiguity  of  a 
Latin  sentence  as  to  which  of  two  object-words  is  prim- 
ary object,  and  which  is  secondary  object. 

Here,  then,  is  the  Latin  of  the  passage  from  the  Ad- 
versus  Judaeos: 

"  XJtiquc  in  corpus  Ejus  lignum  missum  est.  Sic  enim  Christua 
revelavit,  ■panem  corpus  Suum  appellans,  cujus  retro  corpus  in 
panem  figuravit  propheta . ' ' 

The  following  is  the  translation  of  the  Ante-Nicene 
Fathers  (III.  166,  American  Edition) : 

"Of  course  on  His  body  that  wood  was  put;  for  so  Clirist 
has  revealed,  calling  His  body  'bread,'  whose  body  the  prophet 
in  by-gone  days  announced  under  the  term  bread." 

I  submit  that  in  this  place  panem  corpus  Suum  appellans 
certainly   means,    "calling   bread   His   body,"   and   not. 


NOTES  249 

"calling  His  body  bread."  As  a  simple  matter  of  fact, 
our  Lord  did  not  call  His  body  bread,  and  Tertullian  did 
not  think  of  Him  as  having  done  so.  There  is  no  refer- 
ence here  to  S.  John  vi.  51,  or  58.  Our  next  quotation 
will  show  Tertullian  (in  a  precisely  similar  sequence  of 
thought)  arguing  solely  from  the  account  of  the  Institu- 
tion of  the  Eucharist  given  in  the  Gospel  according  to 
S.  Luke.  And  there  is  nothing  in  that  Gospel  to  justify 
such  a  phrase  as  "calling  His  body  bread."  That  is  my 
first  point.  The  same  criticism  will  come  up  in  connec- 
tion with  each  of  the  two  other  Tertullian  passages  with 
which  I  am  to  deal. 

But  further,  and  this  is  a  more  important  point  by  far, 
the  translator  seems  to  have  missed  the  idea  of  Ter- 
tullian's  word  retro.  He  renders  it,  "in  by-gone  days." 
But  retro  has  no  such  meaning  of  itself.  It  means  "back- 
ward," or  "in  reverse  direction,"  or  "back  of  us."  That 
last  meaning  entitles  us  to  render  quod  est  retro,  "what  is 
past,"  or  even  to  render  omnes  retro  principes,  "all  the 
chiefs  of  old  times."  But  look  at  this  passage.  If  the 
writer  had  wanted  to  say  that  this  act,  figuravit,  took 
place  "way  back  in  the  old  days,"  he  would,  of  course, 
have  put  retro  closely  with  figuravit.  What  he  does  is  to 
say,  cujus  retro  corpus  in  panem  figuravit.  The  hody  is 
represented  as  going  the  reverse  way  somehow.  Plainly,  the 
meaning  is,  —  "calling  bread  His  body,  whose  body  in 
reverse  fashion  the  prophet  translated  (in  the  language 
of  figure)  into  bread."  \ 

The  thought  seems  crystal  clear.  Our  Lord  called 
bread  His  body,  in  a  mystical  fashion.  The  prophet 
Jeremiah  had,  in  a  mystical  fashion  which  was  exactly 
the  reverse  of  this,  called  the  Lord's  body  "bread." 

The  second  of  these  TertuUian-passages  {Adv.  Mar- 
cionem  III.  19)  runs  as  follows: 


250       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

"Sic  cnim  DeJis  in  Evangelio  quoque  vestro  revelavit,  panem 
corpus  Suum  appellans,  ut  et  hinc  jam  Bum  intelligas  corporis  Sui 
figuram  pani  dedisse,  cujiis  retro  corpus  in  panem  propheta 
figuravit." 

Again  I  give  the  version  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers 
(III.  337): 

"For  so  did  God,  in  your  own  Gospel  even,*  reveal  the  sense, 
when  He  called  His  body  bread,  so  that  for  the  time  to  come  you 
may  understand  that  He  has  given  to  His  body  the  figure  of 
bread,  whose  body  the  prophet  of  old  figuratively  turned  into 
bread." 

Here  besides  the  old  mistake  of  "when  He  called  His 
body  bread"  for  "calling  bread  His  body,"  we  have  the 
astonishing  translation,  "He  has  given  to  His  body  the 
figure  of  bread,"  when  the  plain  meaning  is 

"so  that  even  from  hence  [from  our  Lord's  words  recorded  by 
S.  Luke]  you  may  understand  that  He  has  given  to  bread  to  be  a 
figure  of  His  body." 

The  misunderstanding  of  retro  is  repeated,  hni  figuravii 
in  panem  is  rendered  justly.  Again,  as  in  the  Adversus 
Judaeos,  we  have  the  opposition  of  our  Lord's  calling 
bread  His  body  in  a  mystical  sense,  and  the  prophet, 
"in  reverse  fashion,"  calling  the  Lord's  body  "bread" 
in  a  mystical  sense,  "the  Lord  Himself  designing  [so 
TertuUian  continues  herej]  to  give  by  and  by  an  inter- 
pretation of  the  mystery."  I  note,  as  I  pass,  that  Dr. 
Pusey  (on  his  p.  97)  gives  a  just,  though  not  literal, 
translation  of  both  these  passages,  rendering  panem 
corpus  Suum  appellans,  as  I  have  done,  "calling  bread 
His  body,"  but  Dr.  Pusey  misquotes  the  Latin  of  the 

•  It  will  be  remembered  that  Marcion  accepted  no  Gospel  but  that 
of  S.  Luke. 


NOTES  251 

second  passage,  giving  cujus  retro  in  corpus  panem  for 
cujus  retro  corpus  in  panem.  He  gives  fairly  the  right 
meaning,  but  a  wrong  Latin. 

Passing  to  the  third  of  my  passages  (Adv.  Marcion.  IV. 
40),  I  will  give  the  Latin  of  the  more  important  sentences: 

"Acceptum  panem,  et  distributum  discipulis,  corpus  illud 
Suum  fecit,  'Hoc  est  corpus  Meum,'  dicendo,  'id  est,figura  corporis 
Mei.'  Figura  non  fuisset,  nisi  veritatis  esset  corpus.  .  .  .  Cur 
autem  panem  corpus  Suum  appellat,  et  non  magis  peponem,  quern 
Marcion  cordis  loco  kabuitF" 

I  will  refer  to  my  translation  of  these  words  in  Lecture 
II.  (p.  40),  for  my  own  understanding  of  them.  The 
translation  in  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  quite  overlooks 
illud  in  the  former  portion,  and  renders,  "made  it  His 
own  body  hy  saying,  'This  is  My  body,'  that  is,  the 
figure  of  My  body."  Dr.  Pusey  translates  illud,  but 
renders  the  phrase,  "that  body  of  His  own,"  for  which 
I  see  no  sufficient  ground.  The  idea  of  introducing  illud 
seems  to  be,  "that  thing  which  the  Church  knows,  which 
is  in  some  sense  His  body,"  or  possibly  "that  body  in 
which  He  clothes  Himself  for  a  particular  purpose." 

In  the  second  portion,  the  translation  of  the  Ante- 
Nicene  Fathers  (III.  418)  gives  us,  "Why  call  His  body 
bread,"  and  Dr.  Pusey,  "Why  doth  He  call  His  body 
bread?",  etc.  But  certainly,  the  thought  is  "Why  does 
our  Lord  take  bread,  rather  than  some  other  thing,  to  be 
a  figure  of  His  body?"  Later,  TertuUian  goes  on  to 
mention  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  as  in  the  other  quota- 
tions, and  adds  this  phrase:        ^ 

"And  thus  the  Illuminator  of  the  things  of  old  declared  plainly 
what  He  meant  by  the  bread,  calling  bread  His  body." 

The  idea  is  that  our  Lord  as  Illuminator  antiquitatum 
(a  fine  phrase)  showed  what  the  bread  meant  in  Jeremiah's 


252       THE  EUCILVRISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

prophecy,  when  in  the  upper  room  He  called  bread  His 
body.  Both  the  A-N.  F.  and  Dr.  Pusey's  volume  reverse 
the  meaning  in  this  place,  as  the  A-N.  F.  had  done  before, 
and  translate  "calling  His  body  bread." 

As  I  have  pointed  out  before,  TertuUian  had  two 
pieces  of  figurative  language  before  his  mind,  one  of  our 
Lord,  calling  bread  His  body,  as  set  forth  in  the  Gospel 
narrative,  and  one  of  an  ancient  prophet,  giving  to  our 
Lord's  body,  in  a  prophetic  picture,  the  name  of  bread. 
To  ascribe  to  our  Lord  any  act  of  calling  His  body  bread 
in  interpreting  this  language  of  TertuUian  is  hopelessly 
to  confuse  what  TertuUian  was  trying  to  say.  Whether 
it  is  fair  to  charge  TertuUian  with  thinking  of  our  Lord's 
words  as  "figurative"  in  the  modern  sense,  that  is,  as 
non-literal,  will  be  considered  in  the  next  Note  (Note  E). 

NOTEE 

ON  THE  MEANING   OF  FIGURA  IN   THE  PHRASE, 
FIGURA    CORPORIS    MEI 

I  HAVE  not  referred  in  my  Lectures  in  the  warning  of 
Dr.  Darwell  Stone  (History,  I,  29-31),  that  the  use  of 
such  words  as  "figure,"  "symbol,"  and  "type"  by  the 
Fathers  is  different  from  the  use  of  such  words  in 
modern  writing.  Dr.  Stone  quotes  Prof.  Harnack  as 
stating  "a  crucial  difference  with  great  clearness."  These 
are  the  words  referred  to,  from  the  History  of  Dogma: 

"What  wc  nowadays  understand  by  'symbol'  is  a  thing  which 
is  not  that  which  it  represents;  at  that  time  'symbol'  denoted  a 
thing  which  in  some  kind  of  way  really  is  what  it  signifies." 

I  remark  that  even  in  our  modern  use  there  are  two 
quite   different    levels   of    "symbol"    and    "figure."    A 


NOTES  253 

picture  of  a  great  monarch  is  one  sort  of  symbol;  an 
ambassador,  armed  with  proper  credentials  from  "His 
Majesty,"  is  quite  another.  Each  "represents"  the 
sovereign;  but  it  may  be  said  of  the  ambassador  that 
he,  at  any  rate,  "in  some  kind  of  way  really  is  what  [he] 
signifies."  Certainly  the  Fathers  looked  upon  the 
sacraments  as  "symbols"  of  this  superior  sort. 

But  Dr.  Harnack  falls  below  his  usual  "great  clearness" 
here.  What  does  he  mean  by  "in  some  kind  of  way"? 
I  venture  to  suggest  that  he  does  not  know,  himself,  and 
therefore  does  not  tell  us.  That  phrase,  "in  some  kind 
of  way,"  posits  an  unsolved  difficulty,  and  does  it  without 
the  clearness  of  open  confession,  — "  We  moderns  cannot 
make  head  nor  tail  of  it."  I  am  not  satisfied  that  any 
proof  has  been  offered  that  the  ancients  used  "symbol" 
and  "figure"  in  a  different  sense  from  the  moderns, 
except  that  in  Christian  theology  the  ancients  used  such 
words  in  a  way  which  modern  theologies  cannot  interpret 
satisfactorily.  I  repeat  my  own  suggestion,  that  the 
key  to  the  difficulty  lies  not  in  differing  uses  of  the  words 
"symbol"  and  "figure"  and  "type,"  as  between  them  and 
us,  but  in  differing  uses  of  the  words  "body"  and  "blood," 
as  between  the  mind  of  the  ancient,  and  the  mind  of  the 
modern.  Church.  When  the  Church  saw  a  natural 
body  of  our  Lord  and  a  eucharistic  body,  and  distinguished 
(while  it  also  identified)  the  two,  it  was  supremely  natural 
for  the  Church  to  call  consecrated  bread  our  Lord's 
body^  and  also  a  "figure"  of  our  Lord's  body.  The  use 
of  the  word  "figure"  was  quite  like  our  own. 

But  in  regard  to  TertuUian  in  particular.  Dr.  Stone 
refers  to  an  interesting  examination  of  his  use  of  figura 
(in  the  Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  VII.  595)  by  Mr. 
C.  H.  Turner,  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford.  Mr.  Turner 
acknowledges  freely,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  Dr.  Stone 


254       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

would  acknowledge,  that  Tertullian  does  sometimes  use 
figura  quite  in  our  modern  fashion,  as  opposed  to  reality, 
to  what  a  Latin  writer  would  call  Veritas.  On  the  other 
hand,  he  shows,  most  convincingly,  that  Tertullian  used 
the  word  figura  where  some  such  phrase  as  "precise 
presentment"  ^  might  stand  in  English,  Well,  let  it  be 
remembered  that  we  use  the  word  "figure"  for  realities 
over  and  over,  ourselves.  We  speak  of  "a  fine  figure  of 
a  man,"  of  seeing  "terrible  figures  of  armed  riders  dashing 
through  the  streets,"  of  a  "river  of  no  inconsiderable 
figure."  Oh!  yes!  Even  in  English  a  figure  may  be  a 
very  real  thing.  I  may  add  that  even  where  Tertullian 
brings  figura  and  veritatis  corpus  into  one  sentence,  it 
is  by  no  means  necessary  to  suppose  that  he  opposes 
them  one  to  the  other.  I  have  no  quarrel  with  Mr. 
Turner  on  that  point.  If  by  figura  corporis  Mei  he 
meant,  "the  precise  presentment  of  My  body,"  it  would 
certainly  be  a  good  and  sound  argument  to  bring  against 
such  a  one  as  Marcion,  to  write,  —  "There  would  be  no 
precise  presentment,  if  there  had  not  been  a  real  body  to 
present." 

It  may  be  agreed,  then,  that  Tertullian  certainly  has 
two  uses  oi  figura,  one  carrying  the  meaning  of  "symbol," 
and  another  carrying  the  meaning  of  "reality,"  and  that 
either  meaning  will  make  sense  in  the  immediate  connec- 
tion in  which  this  particular  use  of  figura  stands.  Is  it, 
then,  a  drawn  battle.''  Or  can  cause  be  shown  why  the 
decision  should  be  given  to  one  party  rather  than  to  the 
other?  I  think  that  we  who  take  figura  figuratively  in 
this  place  can  really  claim  the  verdict.  Tertullian  tells 
us  that  in  a  certain  correspondence  with  our  Lord's 
utterance,    Hoc   est   corpus    Meum,   to   which   he   lends 

*  The  English  phrase  is  my  own  suggestion,  for  which  Mr.  Turner 
is  in  no  way  responsible,  if  I  have  not  caught  his  meaning. 


NOTES  255 

the  word  figura  as  an  explanation,  stands  an  utterance 
of  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  figuratively  calling  our  Lord's 
body  by  the  name  of  bread.  Corpus  in  panem  figuravit. 
The  prophet  did  not  make  our  Lord's  body  to  have  the 
figura  (in  the  sense  of  substantial  fact)  of  bread.  The 
prophet  called  our  Lord's  body  "bread"  by  a  figure  of 
speech.  At  least,  that  is  Tertullian's  understanding  of 
the  prophet.  Then,  also,  we  hear  (still  according  to 
Tertullian's  understanding)  our  Lord,  saying,  "This  is 
My  body,  that  is,  a  figure  of  My  body."  These  two 
forms  of  speech  TertuUian  brings  into  parallel.  These 
two  forms  of  speech  he  sees  as  parallel.  What  figura 
means  in  figuravit  in  panem,  that,  and  nothing  else, 
figura  means  in  figura  corporis  Mei.  In  both  cases  figura 
has  a  figurative  meaning. 

It  seems  to  be  worth  while  to  point  out  further  that 
Tertullian's  figura  seems  really  to  be  expounded  in 
Augustine's  signum}  And  then  there  is  Augustine's 
rule  for  deciding  whether  a  Scripture  passage  is  literal  or 
figurative,  and  his  application  of  it  to  our  Lord's  words. 
Augustine,  to  be  sure,  is  two  hundred  years  later  than 
TertuUian,  but  if  he  may  be  regarded,  and  I  think  that 
he  is  generally  regarded,  as  a  true  representative  of  the 
North  African  tradition,  it  is  clear  that  Tertullian's 
figura  corporis  Mei  is  to  be  understood  as  a  testimony 
on  the  figurative  side. 

A  word  let  fall  by  Mr.  Turner  suggests  an  interesting 
train  of  thought.  He  says  that  Tertullian's  figura  some- 
times seems  to  be  an  equivalent  for  the  Greek  xapaKTi7p. 
The  mention  of  that  word,  with  its  great  association 
with  Eeh.  i.  3  ("the  very  impress  of  His  Person,"  R.  V. 
margin),  suggests  at  once  the  mystery  of  the  Blessed 

'  See  Lecture  V,  p.  123,  "hesitating  not  to  say,  'This  is  My  body,* 
when  He  gave  a  sign  of  His  body." 


250       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

Trinity,  Shall  we  say  that  God  is  One?  or  that  God  is 
Three?  No  careful  theologian  would  use  the  latter 
phrase,  but  yet  it  is  a  phrase  that  could  be  used  truthfully 
enough.  If  you  are  thinking  in  terms  of  Being,  God  is 
One.  If  you  are  thinking  in  terms  of  Personality,  God 
is  Three.  Our  diflficulty  about  our  Lord's  body  is,  I 
submit,  that  we  have  not  learned  to  distinguish  justly 
between  the  material  which  our  Lord  uses  for  His  em- 
bodiment in  various  modes  of  existence,  and  His  own 
holding  of  these  diverse  embodiments  in  an  unbreakable 
unity.  As  to  material,  the  body  natural,  the  body 
sacramental,  and  the  body  mystical  are  three.  As  to 
the  Corporator,  if  I  may  coin  a  new  word,  or  rather 
thrust  upon  an  old  word  a  meaning  of  my  own  coining, 
these  three  are  one.  We  are  too  apt  to  insist  that  our 
Lord  shall  not  be  supposed  to  use  one  word  of  our  poor 
human  language  in  several  different  ways.  Yet  we  are 
warned  by  S.  Paul  that  it  is  within  the  right  of  the  Great 
Revealer  so  to  deal  with  us.  We  do  it  ourselves.  "All 
flesh  is  not  the  same  flesh,"  we  may  say.  We  use  the 
word  "body"  to  mean  many  things.  S.  Paul  uses  that 
suggestion  in  1  Cor.  xv.  37-42,  to  check  men  from  a 
false  literalism  touching  the  doctrine  of  the  xesurrection. 
I  think  that  he  would  like  to  see  us  apply  the  same  check 
to  the  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist. 


NOTEF 
ON  ORIGEN'S  PHRASE  AFION  TI 

The  Greek  of  the  passage  referred  to  in  Lecture  III. 
p.  69,  is  as  follows:  aiona  yevotikvovs  5td  rijv  evxv^  olJi^v 
Ti  Kal  ayt.6.^ov. 


NOTES  257 

It  must  be  perfectly  clear  to  every  Greek  scholar  that 
ajLov  and  ayi.a^ov  are  two  parallel  attributes  of  acona 
and  that  in  the  phrase  ayiSv  tl  the  word  tl  qualifies  ayiop 
and  ay  LOP  alone.  It  cannot  be  imagined  to  belong  with 
cufia,  with  those  five  other  words  coming  in  between. 
Even  if  aco/xa  ayiov  rt  in  a  single  group  could  be  the  same 
in  meaning  as  trco/xd  ti  ayiov,  which  I  should  not  suppose 
to  be  the  case,  this  phrase,  as  it  stands,  is  a  clear  instance 
of  the  idiom  in  which  tis  lends  indefiniteness  of  meaning 
to  an  adjective. 

My  attention  was  directed  to  this  piece  of  idiom  nearly 
thirty  years  ago  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  I.  T.  Beckwith,  then 
Professor  of  Greek  in  Trinity  College,  Hartford,  Connecti- 
cut. I  am  again  indebted  to  his  kindness  for  the  following 
references  furnished  me  only  a  few  months  since :  Kuehner, 
Ausfuehrliche  Grammatik  der  griechischen  Sprache,  dritte 
Auflage,  470.  3^  (Vol.  III.  p.  663) ;  Winer's  Grammar  of 
New  Testament  Greek,  25,  2;  Liddell  and  Scott's  Greek 
Lexicon,  ns  A.  8;  J.  H.  Thayer's  Greek-English  Lexicon  of 
the  New  Testament,  tls  I,  a.  To  these  I  add  a  reference  to 
A.  T.  Robertson's  Grammar  of  the  Greek  New  Testament 
in  the  Light  of  Historical  Research,  p.  743.  Kuehner  gives 
some  interesting  examples  of  the  idiom:  (1)  from  Homer's 
Odyssey,  xvii.  449,  where  Antinous  insolently  addresses 
Ulysses  with  the  words,  —  "Qs  rts  dapffoXeo^  Kal  avalSrjs 
iaau  Trpo'iKTrjs.  ("What  an  exceedingly  bold  and  shame- 
less beggar  art  thou ! ") ;  (2)  from  Herodotus,  2,  43,  — 
dXXA  Tis  cipxatos  ecrrt  deos  ("But  he  is  a  god  of  immense 
antiquity");  and  (3)  from  Xenophon's  Memorabilia,  1,  3, 
12,  8uvr]v  riva  \kyHs  diiva/jLLV  tov  (f)L\r]fxaros  dvai. 

Dr.  Beckwith  also  calls  attention  to  the  interesting 
New  Testament  example  of  this  idiom,  —  ^o^tpa  5e  rts 

*  The  same  paragraph  number  stands  good  for  the  zweite  Auflage, 
in  which  the  passage  is  on  pp.  570,  571. 


258       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

ejcSoxi)  Kplaecos  (Heb.  x.  27),  and  sends  me  extracts  from  the 
commentaries  of  Bernhard  Weiss  and  Von  Soden  in  loco. 

Weiss  says,  "The  rts  brings  into  especially  emphatic 
prominence,  how  indefinitely,  because  immeasurably, 
fearful  this  expectation  is";  and  Von  Soden,  —  "  tls  is 
brought  in  as  exalting  the  (jx>^epa  to  immensity." 

Thayer's  Lexicon  says  of  tls  that  "joined  to  adjectives 
of  quality  or  quantity,  it  requires  us  to  conceive  of  their 
degree  as  the  greatest  possible,"  and  instances,  besides 
Heb.  X.  27,  Acts  viii.  9, —  not  "some  great  one,"  but  "a 
man  beyond  measure  great." 

It  should  be  noted  that  Kuehner  holds,  and  proves  by 
example,  that  the  indefiniteness  given  by  tis  to  an 
adjective  may  be  either  an  indefinite  enlargement,  or  an 
indefinite  belittling  of  the  idea.  Owners  of  Thayer  may 
do  well  to  correct  the  phrase,  "conceive  of  their  degree 
as  the  greatest  possible,"  by  adding  after  "greatest" 
the  words,  "or  the  least."  On  Heb.  x.  27  Alford  has  a 
very  interesting  note,  accepting  the  connection  of  tis 
with  the  adjective.  Westcott,  on  the  other  hand,  con- 
nects the  TLS  with  the  noun,  and  so  do  the  Revised  Ver- 
sions, which  were  very  much  under  his  influence.  .] 


NOTEG 

CONCERNING  A  PASSAGE  OF  S.  CHRYSOSTOM 
WHICH  IL\S  NOTHING  TO  DO  WITH  THE 
SUBJECT  OF  THIS  BOOK 

It  will  have  been  observed  by  some  that  I  have  said 
nothing  of  a  famous  passage  of  S.  Chrysostom  from  the 
Homily  On  the  Betrayal  of  Judas.  It  may  be  found  in 
Pusey,  211,  212,  and  in  the  P.  G.  49,  380. 


NOTES  259 

"Christ  is  present  now  too.  The  Same  who  adorned  that 
table  adorneth  this  too  now.  For  it  is  not  man  who  maketh 
what  Ueth  there  to  become  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  but 
Christ  Himself,  who  was  crucified  for  us.  The  priest  standeth^ 
filling  up  a  figure,  speaking  these  words  [the  words  of  the  Lit- 
urgy]. The  power  and  grace  are  of  God.  'This  is  My  body,' 
He  [God]  saith.  This  word  re-ordereth  what  lieth  there,  and 
as  that  voice,  'Increase  and  multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth,' 
was  spoken  once,  but  throughout  all  time  in  effect  giveth  power 
to  our  race  for  the  procreation  of  children,  so  also  that  voice, 
once  spoken,  doth  on  every  table  in  the  churches,  from  that 
time  even  till  now,  and  unto  His  Coming,  complete  the  sacrifice." 

,1 

This  utterance  has  been  much  quoted  for  two  purposes, 
for  neither  of  which  does  it  stand  good.  It  has  been 
cited  in  behalf  of  the  theory  of  Transubstantiation,  and 
it  has  been  used  to  show  that  S.  Chrysostom  held  the 
recital  of  our  Lord's  words  of  distribution  to  be  the 
instrument  of  the  consecration  in  the  Liturgy.  Readers 
may  be  referred  to  Dr.  Pusey's  treatment  of  this  passage 
for  abundant  evidence  that  S.  John  Chrysostom  attached 
no  idea  of  a  change  of  substance  to  the  word  /icra^pu^/xtfco. 
He  uses  it,  for  example,  of  God's  "re-ordering"  the  lions, 
so  that  they  did  not  hurt  Daniel,  cast  into  their  den  as 
an  offered  prey.  ^  No  more  does  this  passage  avail  as  show- 
ing that  our  saint  attached  the  consecration  in  the 
Eucharist  to  the  priest's  recital  of  the  words,  "This  is 
My  body."  On  the  contrary,  he  presses  two  points. 
(1)  The  consecration  is  the  act  of  God,  and  not  of  man. 
Of  course,  this  point  must  not  be  taken  with  a  hard 
literalness,  but  that  is  the  direction  in  which  the  great 
preacher  is  looking.  (2)  He  makes  the  point  that  as 
God's  word,  "Increase  and  multiply,"  enables  for  the 
propagation  of  the  human  race  through  all  the  ages 
since,  exactly  so  the  word  of  Christ,  proclaiming  that 


260       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

certain  hallowed  bread  is  His  body,  gives  the  bread  and 
wine  of  the  Church's  altars  a  new  place  and  relation  in 
the  universe,  from  that  time  forth,  until  His  coming 
again.  It  is  right  to  find  a  higher  meaning  of  nerappvOnl^o) 
here  than  in  any  other  passage  where  S.  Chrysostom  ever 
used  it,  because  this  was  the  greatest  change  of  pvdfioi 
that  the  saint  had  ever  had  brought  before  his  mind. 
But  certainly  the  present  tense  here  is  not  a  present  of 
repeated  action,  new  at  every  altar  and  in  every  con- 
secration, but  a  present  of  eternal,  never-failing  fact. 
The  words  of  our  Lord,  sounding  in  the  spaces  of  the 
upper  room  in  Jerusalem,  did  not  die  on  the  air.  They 
live  in  heaven.  They  took  up  those  elements  of  bread 
and  wine,  as  matter  offered  to  God  in  sacrifice,  —  not 
those  particular  portions  which  the  Apostles  saw,  but  all 
bread  and  wine  thus  offered  in  all  coming  time,  —  and 
gave  them  a  new  rhythm  in  the  harmony  of  the  spheres. 
It  seems  to  me  entirely  clear  that  the  orator  means 
distinctly  that  it  is  the  voice  of  our  Lord  Himself,  sounding 
once  in  the  upper  room,  and  not  the  words  of  our  Lord, 
repeated  over  and  over  by  a  priest,  here  or  there,  on  this 
occasion  or  on  that,  that  must  be  understood  as  giving  to 
the  elements  a  new  character  and  a  new  place  in  the  order 
of  God's  world. 

The  passage  is  deeply  interesting  and  touching,  but  it 
has  nothing  to  say  about  either  of  the  subjects  in  connec- 
tion with  which  it  is  commonly  adduced. 


NOTES  261 

NOTEH 

ON  THE  fflSTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 
EUCHARIST,  AS  SEEN  BY  A  MODERN  ROMAN 
CATHOLIC  SCHOLAR 

A  sMAMi  man  may  point  out  mistakes  in  the  work  of  a 
great  man.  If  there  be  a  mistake  there,  it  is  the  business 
of  any  one  who  happens  to  see  it,  to  call  attention  to  it. 
The  lesser  man  may  not  praise  the  greater  man  without 
some  danger  of  seeming  to  be  presumptuous.  But  that 
danger  must  not  be  allowed  to  prevent  the  writer  of  these 
Lectures  from  calling  attention  to  the  power  and  charm 
of  certain  Studies  of  that  eminent  French  scholar, 
Mgr.  Batiffol.  He  has  put  forth  two  series  of  Studies, 
under  the  title  Etudes  d'Histoire  et  de  Theologie  Positive. 
The  second  series  is  a  little  volume  on  Conversion  and  Tran- 
substantiation  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  The  author  com- 
bines that  logical  movement  of  thought  and  that  clearness 
of  expression  which  one  expects  in  a  French  writer,  with 
the  fearless  honesty  of  the  chivalrous  gentleman  of  every 
race.  John  Bunyan  in  his  Pilgrim's  Progress  introduces 
a  character  whom  he  calls  Mr.  Facing-both-ways.  He 
has  no  Mr.  Facing-the-facts,  in  his  allegory.  Perhaps  in 
the  angry  controversies  of  the  sixteenth  century  he  had 
not  encountered  any  such  enquirer.  But  here  we 
have  a  fine  example  of  the  honest  gentleman  who  faces 
facts,  even  the  most  disagreeable,  and  salutes  them,  as 
the  soldier  salutes  his  superior  officer.  On  p.  379  of  his 
Etudes:  deuxieme  serie  he  uses  the  phrase,  La  critique 
objective.  Of  that  SM6jective  criticism  of  which  so  much 
has  been  "made  in  Germany,"  which  settles  with  itself 
how  the  history  of  the  Church  ought  to  have  gone,  and 
then  proceeds  to  prove,  with  enormous  diligence  and 


262       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

considerable  acumen,  that  it  did  go  so,  Mgr.  Batiffol 
will  have  nothing.  He  has,  to  be  sure,  his  own  pre- 
possessions. He  holds,  for  instance,  that  the  history  of 
Christian  thought  is  an  evolution  in  which  the  spirit  of 
God  has  led  the  Church  step  by  step  to  a  fulness  of  vision 
and  of  wisdom  embodied  at  last  in  the  decrees  of  the 
Council  of  Trent.  But  while  he  thus  holds  that  the 
highest  truth  that  has  as  yet  been  given  to  the  Church 
to  know  concerning  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  expressed  in 
the  Tridentine  Decree  defining  the  dogma  of  Tran- 
substantiation,  he  studies  the  Fathers  with  absolute  and 
fearless  freedom,  and  pronounces  that  the  vision  of  that 
dogma  was  not  given  to  their  eyes  to  see.  Some  came 
very  near  it,  in  the  judgment  of  Mgr.  Batiffol.  S.  Gregory 
of  Nyssa  and  S.  John  Chrysostom  are  his  particular 
heroes  in  the  East,  and  S.  Ambrose  in  the  West.  But 
none  of  them  quite  saw  the  vision.  He  is  rather  severe 
on  S.  Augustine,  whose  mistakes  he  points  out  most 
faithfully,  and  whose  great  authority  he  tells  us  (on  his 
p.  246),  kept  back  the  Latin-speaking  Church  from  the 
healthy  and  proper  development  of  its  own  eucharistic 
doctrine  until  the  ninth  century.  Secure  in  his  theory 
of  development,  he  can  show  how  unliappily  Gelasius  I 
misconceived  the  Church's  tradition.  Pope  and  canonized 
Saint  though  he  be.  Indeed,  Mgr.  Batiffol  regards  as 
especially  mischievous  that  Incarnation-analogy  which 
we  have  found  cropping  up  in  every  century.  "Cette 
analogie  trompeuse,"  he  calls  it,  "entre  V Incarnation  et 
VEucharistie"  and  he  says  of  it  (on  his  pp.  324,  325)  that 
it  will  appear  no  more  after  the  definitive  victory  of  the 
theology  of  S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  under  Justin  and 
Justinian,  in  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century.  But  that 
is  one  of  the  small  mistakes  of  a  great  teacher,  for  Mgr. 
Batiffol  himself  writes  (on  his  p.  333)  of  S.  John  of  Da- 


NOTES  263 

mascus,  two  centuries  later  than  Justin  and  Justinian, 
as  holding  to  the  analogy  of  the  Incarnation,  which  he 
certainly  did. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  mention  a  few  of  the  inter- 
pretations given  by  this  clear-eyed  Catholic  scholar  to 
writings  of  the  Church's  early  days.  Thus,  while  he 
greatly  misHkes  such  an  analogy  himself,  he  says  of  Justin 
Martyr  (140  ^),  that  the  thought  of  Justin  "judges  the 
Eucharist  by  an  analogy  with  the  Incarnation."  On  the 
other  side  of  the  account,  our  scholar  translates  8C  evxns 
"Koyov,  par  une  parole  de  priere,  and  later  refers  to  this 
parole  as  la  formule  de  priere  qui  nous  avons  regue  de 
Jesus,     We  have  been  over  this  ground  in  Lecture  II. 

Passing  to  Irenaeus,  we  find  (153, 154)  the  two  elements, 
"earthly"  and  "heavenly,"  of  which  the  Eucharist 
consists,  made  out  by  our  French  critic  to  be  "the  flesh 
of  Christ"  (the  earthly)  and  "the  Spirit  of  Christ"  (the 
heavenly).  His  idea  of  the  heavenly  part  seems  to  be 
that  which  is  ascribed  to  Irenaeus  in  Lecture  II.  But 
what  can  Mgr.  Batiflfol  mean  by  calling  "the  flesh  of 
Christ"  an  "earthly"  element?  To  S.  Irenaeus  the  con- 
secrated bread  was  certainly  "earthly,"  and  as  certainly 
"the  flesh  of  Christ."  But  can  our  Lord's  glorified  body 
be  called  an  "earthly"  element?  I  suppose  that  our 
critic  would  say,  "Yes!  When  it  dwells  on  earth,  it  is 
earthly."  Whether  I  represent  his  mind  in  this  point, 
I  am  not  quite  sure,  but  he,  in  his  turn,  feels  a  diflSculty 
in  representing  Irenaeus.  "One  is  surprised,"  he  says 
(158),  "that  Irenaeus  speaks  of  the  first-fruits  of  the 
creation,  the  bread  and  the  wine,  as  if  in  the  Eucharist 
the  bread  and  wine  remained  (subsistaient) ,  and  could  be 
theoretically  distinguished  from  the  body  and  blood." 

*  Numbers  in  parenthesis  in  this  note  are  to  be  understood  as  refer- 
ring to  pages  of  Mgr.  Batiffol's  volume. 


264       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

This  distinguishing  the  bread  and  wine  from  the  body  and 
blood  is  exactly  what  Irenaeus  never  does,  and  none  of 
the  Fathers  do,  if  I  have  understood  them.  But,  of 
course,  Mgr.  Batiffol  is  assuming  that  "body"  must 
mean  "glorified  body,"  and,  of  course,  Irenaeus  did 
distinguish  in  theory  between  the  body  eucharistic  and 
the  body  natural.  Then  our  author  asks  a  question. 
He  has  no  doubt  about  the  "Realism"  of  Irenaeus,  but 
did  Irenaeus  find  his  own  explanation  of  it  in  a  trans- 
mutatio  which  did  not  annihilate  the  bread  and  wine,  a 
transmutatio  analogous  to  that  which  is  produced  in  a 
wild-oUve  tree  by  grafting?  That  is  the  modern  French- 
man's question,  and  he  cannot  answer  it  securely  in  his 
own  mind.  "The  question  remains  an  enigma,"  he  says. 
He  seems  to  me  to  come  very  near  to  my  understanding  of 
Irenaeus. 

Mgr.  Batiffol  recognizes  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  the 
disposition  to  treat  the  Incarnation  and  the  Eucharist 
as  analogous  mysteries,  but  he  is  dissatisfied  with 
Clement's  mysticisms,  which  he  does  not  approach  in  a 
friendly  spirit.  "Who  would  accept  (180)  as  a  workable 
theory  of  the  Eucharist,  or  of  the  Incarnation  either, 
this  idea  of  Kpacrts?"  In  deahng  with  Origen  he  has 
(191,  192),  a  striking  suggestion:  "We  may  remind  our- 
selves in  this  connection  that  Cardinal  Bellarmine  gives  us 
authority  for  seeing  in  the  eucharistic,  or  sacramental, 
body  a  symbol  of  the  historic  body,  or  of  the  body 
glorified."  ^ 

I  had  expected  to  be  sharply  criticized  for  allowing 
myself  to  use  any  such  phrase  as  "eucharistic  body," 
or  "sacramental  body."  It  is  interesting  to  have  the 
authority  of  a  Roman  Cardinal  for  it.     I  may  add  that 

*  Cardinal  Bellarmine  autorise  h  voir  dans  le  corps  cucharistique  ou 
sacramentel  un  synil)i)Ii'  du  corjxs  lii.stori(iue,  du  corps  glorieux. 


'NOTES  ms 

in  speaking  (216)  of  Tertullian's  phrase,  corpus  Meum, 
id  est,  figura  corporis  Mei,  Mgr.  Batiffol  makes  the  out- 
ward appearance  to  be  the  figura,  and  quotes  Vasquez 
for  it,  but  he  scorns  the  idea  that  Tertullian  was  a 
ReaUst  in  a  sense  satisfactory  to  modern  Cathohcs. 
"TertulUan  opposes  figure  and  reality.  .  .  .  No  subtlety 
of  exegesis  will  make  it  possible  to  say  that  Tertullian 
acknowledged  in  the  Eucharist  the  reality  of  the  body,  — 
I  mean,  that  he  saw  there  the  natural  body  of  Christ." 

On  S.  Augustine  our  author  is  vastly  interesting.  "The 
teaching  of  S.  Augustine  on  the  Eucharist,"  he  says 
(326),  "has  to  this  day  been  for  us  theologians  one  of  the 
most  diflScult  to  bring  into  consistency  with  itself,  or  to 
harmonize  with  that  of  a  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  an  Ambrose, 
or  a  Chrysostom."  But  put  him  in  his  proper  place,  the 
critic  says,  as  just  representing  the  (rather  poor  and  low) 
African  tradition  of  Tertullian  and  S.  Cyprian,  a  little 
more  thought  out,  and  you  will  have  no  trouble  in  under- 
standing him.  But  this  hardly  allows  weight  enough, 
it  seems  to  me,  to  the  fact  that  the  young  man  Augustine 
was  a  follower,  an  admirer,  and  a  personal  pupil  of  S. 
Ambrose.  Augustine  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  in  the 
Ambrosian  succession,  as  well  as  in  the  African,  and  the 
writings  of  S.  Augustine  should  be  considered  in  weighing 
what  S.  Ambrose  really  meant,  himself. 

Mgr.  Batiffol  represents  S.  Augustine  (235)  as  holding 
that  there  is  "nothing  sensible"  in  the  Eucharist,  and 
that  Christ  could  not  give  His  natural  body  to  be  eaten 
and  His  natural  blood  to  be  drunk,  for  this  reason,  before 
all  others,  that  the  natural  body  is  now  glorified  in  heaven. 
"Neither  Augustine  nor  Gregory  [of  Nyssa],"  he  says, 
"dreams  of  identifying  strictly  {_ne  songent  a  identifier 
proprement2  the  eucharistic  body  and  the  glorified  body 
of  Christ." 


266       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

On  (246),  still  speaking  of  S.  Augustine,  our  author 
tells  us  that  "Greek  theology  will  come  clear  [La  Dog- 
matique  grecque  s'en  degagera]  with  S.  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
Latin  theology  with  S.  Ambrose."  ^  Thus  he  credits  S. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa  with  having  made  a  distinct  advance 
toward  the  idea  of  a  "Conversion"  in  the  Eucharist.  At 
the  same  time  he  sees  clearly  (256-258)  that  S.  Gregory 
did  not  hold  to  the  modern  theory  of  Transubstantiation, 
any  more  than  he  can  be  satisfied  to  accept  the  suggestion 
of  an  eminent  German  scholar,  Dr.  Loofs,  that  S.  Gregory 
attached  himself  to  a  theory  of  "Impanation."  Mgr. 
Batiffol  complains  that  there  is  a  defect  in  S.  Gregory's 
view.  That  view  declares  that  food  is  turned  to  nutri- 
ment "by  a  certain  transforming  power"  [5id  rjjs 
aWoLOJTiKTJs  8vvan€0}s2-  There  must  be,  then,  according  to  S. 
Gregory's  argument  from  analogy,  a  "transforming 
power"  in  the  Eucharist.  The  French  critic  sees  as 
clearly  as  I  do  that  that  "transforming  power"  is  the 
Divine  Word.  Nothing  is  said  of  the  body  of  the  Word. 
"Le  Verbe  lui-meme  sera  cette  aWoLOJTLKri  bbva^is.  Id 
apparait  le  deficit  de  la  theorie  de  Gregoire  de  Nysse."  Mgr. 
Batiffol  does  not  deign  to  shelter  himself  behind  the 
suggestion  that  the  Word  cannot  be  present  in  the  Eucha- 
rist without  His  body.  He  is  quite  clear  that  S.  Gregory 
did  not  think  of  the  natural  body  as  being  there. 

For  this  is  the  way  in  which  our  French  devotee  of  a 
truly  "objective"  historical  study  goes  on,  speaking 
still  of  S.  Gregory : 

"He  did  not  at  all  realize  [//  n'a  pas  soupqonnf]  that  the  eu- 
charistic  body  which  he  was  assigning  to  the  Word  was  a  new 
body,  a  body  different  from   the  historic   body.     The   Word 

'    *  As  if  S.  Ambrose  was  later  than  S.  Augustine,  instead  of  being  his 
honored  master! 


NOTES  267 

assigns  to  Himself  a  body  for  the  purpose  of  the  Eucharist,  as 
He  assigned  to  Himself  a  body  for  the  purpose  of  the  Incarnation. 
And  He  can  say  of  this  eucharistic  body,  'This  is  My  body,' 
since  this  body  is  His.  But  this  body  is  not  that  which  was 
born,  and  which  suffered." 

The  last  words,  "This  body  is  not  that  which  was  born, 
and  which  suffered,"  are,  of  course,  the  critic's  con- 
clusion from  S.  Gregory's  thought.  I  hold  it  to  be,  to  a 
certain  extent,  a  just  conclusion.  Yet  I  am  sure  that 
S.  Gregory  himself  would  have  said  of  such  a  statement, 
"In  one  sense.  Yes,  and  in  another  sense.  No."  He 
would  have  held,  with  the  Fathers  generally,  that  any- 
thing which  our  Lord  takes  to  be  His  body  becomes 
thereby  identified  with  His  body  now  in  glory,  and  with 
His  body  of  all  His  earthly  life.  In  a  sense,  it  is  other; 
in  a  sense,  it  is  the  same.  It  is  a  noteworthy  point  that 
Mgr.  Batiffol  finds  fault  with  S.  Gregory  for  using  such 
qualifying  phrases  as  "in  some  way"  [^rporov  tlvcl]  and 
"in  some  sense"  [\6ycp  tlvQ.  These  phrases  seem  to  the 
modern  writer  to  imply  the  negation  of  that  "substantial 
conversion"  of  which  Gregory  of  Nyssa  is  supposed  to 
have  had  some  clear  idea  at  first.  In  fact,  the  French 
theologian's  statement  that  with  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
Greek  theology  "came  clear,"  is  found  to  mean  only 
that  Gregory  had  a  clear  understanding  that  the  eucha- 
ristic elements  suffered  a  conversion.  What  that  con- 
version really  was,  he  did  not  at  all  see,  in  the  opinion  of 
Mgr.  Batiffol. 

Passing  on  to  the  fifth  century,  our  author  deals  with 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  Theodoret.  Even  Cyril  "did 
not  sound  (274)  the  depths  of  the  mystery  of  the  mode 
of  the  Real  Presence,  and  as  soon  as  he  sets  himself  to 
determine  what  the  bread  is,  under  the  forms  of  which 
the  body  of  the  Saviour  is  given,  the  thought  of  Cyril  is 


268       THE  EUCHARISTIC  BODY  AND  BLOOD 

at  once  obscured."  I  cannot  but  suggest  that  if  so 
clear-headed  a  thinker  as  Mgr.  BatifFol  cannot  understand 
the  thought  of  so  clear-headed  a  thinker  as  S.  Cyril  of 
Alexandria,  it  really  seems  as  if  the  modern  student 
was  trying  a  lock  for  which  he  had  not  found  the  right 
key.  But  of  one  thing  Mgr.  Batiffol  is  quite  sure:  it 
was  the  Christologic  question  alone  that  was  occupying 
the  minds  of  both  Cyril  and  Nestorius.  The  doctrine  of 
the  Eucharist  ivas  not  in  controversy  between  them. 

Our  author  deals  with  Theodoret  (278-284).  We 
must  not  be  scandalized,  if  Theodoret's  attempt  at  a 
theory  of  the  Eucharist  is  found  to  be  no  more  happy 
than  that  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  much  less  so,  in  fact. 
The  passages  from  the  Eranistes  are  examined,  and  it  is 
clearly  recognized  that  Theodoret  holds  to  a  "dyo- 
physism"  in  the  Eucharist,  as  in  the  Incarnation.  But 
I  think  that  the  French  critic  does  not  quite  do  justice  to 
Theodoret  in  two  points.  For,  first,  he  makes  out 
Theodoret  to  give  to  the  glorified  body  of  our  Lord  the 
same  relation  to  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  that  our 
Lord's  Divinity  has  to  His  flesh,  —  "Le  corps  du  Verbe, 
qui  est  au  pain  eucharistique  ce  qui  la  Divinite  est  a  Vhu- 
manite  dans  Vlncarnation,"  is  the  phrase  of  Mgr.  Batiffol 
(284)  —  whereas  Theodoret  really  makes  the  Heavenly 
Word  to  be  related  to  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist,  as  to 
the  flesh  of  the  Incarnation,  which  is  a  very  different 
view.  Then,  secondly,  Mgr.  Batiffol  (281)  approves 
thoroughly  of  the  language  put  into  the  mouth  of  the 
Monophysite  opponent,  who  says  that  after  the  Invoca- 
tion the  bread  and  wine  "are  changed  and  become  other," 
but  our  critic  implies  that  Theodoret  himself  thought 
this  to  be  bad  theology.  I  must  repeat  here  what  I  have 
said  in  Lecture  VII,  that  Theodoret  seems  rather  to 
have  been  appealing  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  as 


NOTES  269 

to  something  which  all  Christians  held  in  common,  and 
that  every  statement  concerning  the  Eucharist  made  in 
the  Dialogues  should  be  understood  as  accepted  by  both 
speakers  —  they  never  contradict  one  another  in  this 
matter,  —  and  as  the  belief  of  Theodoret  himself. 

Certainly  this  12mo.  volume  of  some  350  pages  is  most 
interesting.  One  could  wish  to  see  it  pubUshed  in  an 
authorized  English  translation. 

NOTE  I 
FURTHER  LIGHT  ON  MACARIUS  MAGNES 

Just  as  this  volume  is  going  to  press  I  receive  by  the 
kindness  of  an  English  scholar,  the  Rev.  T,  W.  Crafer, 
who  has  been  preparing  a  translation  of  Macarius  Mag- 
nes  for  publication  by  the  S.  P.  C.  K,  a  copy  (made  by 
hand)  of  the  Greek  of  the  passage  about  the  Holy  Eucha- 
rist from  the  Apocritica  (see  my  pages  157-160).  He 
has  sent  me  also  some  papers  of  his  own  reprinted  from 
the  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (April  and  July,  1907, 
and  April  and  July,  1914),  in  which  he  maintains  very 
interestingly  that  these  dialogues  are  a  record  of  a  real 
debate,  that  the  heathen  critic  was  Hierocles,  a  Roman 
magistrate  who  flourished  about  a.d.  300  in  some  of  the 
Asiatic  provinces,  that  the  Christian  apologist  was 
a  devoted  follower  of  Origen,  not  at  all  an  anti-Origenist, 
as  Macarius,  the  bishop  of  a  century  later  was,  and  that 
if  Macarius  of  Magnesia  really  had  anything  to  do  with 
these  dialogues,  it  must  have  been  as  an  editor  of  a 
writing  of  long  before. 

I  am  not  able  to  discuss  the  question.  I  will  only 
mention  as  a  point  which  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
touched  by  the  disputants,  that  the  objection  to  the  use 


270  NOTES 

of  the  word  "type"  for  the  consecrated  elements  seems 
to  suggest  the  theology  of  the  beginning  of  the  fifth 
century  rather  than  that  of  a  hundred  years  earlier. 
If,  however,  Macarius  of  Magnesia  edited  a  book  of  a 
forgotten  author,  wc  are  left  in  utter  obscurity  as  to  the 
dating  of  particular  ojiinions  which  may  appear  in  the 
book  in  its  present  form,  except,  of  course,  that  Origenistic 
utterances  must  plainly  be  ascribed  to  the  earlier  writer. 

For  purposes  of  my  owm  book  I  am  very  glad  to  be 
able  to  give  the  Greek  of  the  passage  in  which  Macarius 
speaks  of  "the  body  which  is  the  bread,  and  the  blood 
which  bears  the  character  of  the  wine."  It  runs  thus: 
TO  al/ia  OTTcp  ecTTtv  6  apro?,  koX  to  a-Zfw.  o-rrep  Tvy)(av€L  6  olvos. 
With  this  use  of  rvyxo-vu  it  is  interesting  to  compare  a 
passage  of  S.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  quoted  above,  p.  101. 

There  is  also  an  interesting  passage  in  which  Macarius 
says  that  our  Lord  has  taught  us  "that  body  and  blood 
are  ahke  from  the  earth,  and  have  both  the  same  sub- 
stance": «f  77?  etvai  TO  (Tw/ia  koI  tov  aprov,  koI  /jluiv  CKarepa 
KiKTYjadai  rrjv  ovaiav.  The  same  matter  could  be  either 
bread  or  body,  according  to  this  view.  It  would  depend 
upon  the  use  made  of  it  in  the  economy  of  God. 


Date  Due 

QGIO'51 

5 

» 

• 

^MR     1!  If "^ 

4lHMBHi^a^l^Ld*ai 

!    ■ 

xTj 

^^ 

^'**'*;i*«% 

(|) 

